Which school do you want to support?
The first two years for California teachers are make-or-break.
For their first two years, new teachers in California can be dismissed "at will" by their employer - usually a school district. After two years of employment, however, teachers in most districts enjoy strong due process protections commonly referred to as tenure. As a practical matter, districts need to make a decision in about 18 months whether to employ a teacher as a permanent member of the faculty.
California's tenure policy is unusually quick. Most US states require three years and evidence of competence.
As described in Lesson 3.2,demand for teachers is cyclical, and tied to the performance of the stock market. When budgets rise, California experiences teacher shortages. In those conditions school districts can find it hard to be picky about teacher candidates. They hire while they can.
Whenever hard times hit the stock market, by contrast, California's budget falls. Budget pressure leads to a flurry of springtime pink slips, the common name for a required notice sent to teachers when their position cannot be guaranteed. Seniority is usually the key element for determining the pecking order, at minimum as a tie-breaker.
Reforms that affect tenure usually seek to delay its onset or make it conditional on evidence of good work. There have been multiple attempts. Other reforms seek to reduce the role of seniority as a factor in layoffs or forced placements, or to streamline the steps involved in dismissing teachers. Dismissals for cause are quite rare in California, and the state legislature wrestled for years to streamline the process for dismissing teachers even for egregious misconduct.
Rather than pursue a lengthy dismissal process, principals sometimes use a more expedient solution to remove unwanted staff: they make a deal. If a poorly-performing teacher agrees to move to another school, the principal agrees to give her or him a satisfactory rating. This practice, known as the dance of the lemons, is colorfully derided in Davis Guggenheim’s 2010 film Waiting for Superman.
Teacher unions reject the word tenure and refer to these protections as a form of due process. In a down market, when layoffs are unavoidable, the CTA position is that seniority is usually the least unfair option, protecting teachers from dismissal for "arbitrary, unfair or unjustifiable reasons."
Seniority-based layoff policies are also known as last-hired-first-fired or last-in-first-out (LIFO) policies. The use of seniority as a factor in teacher dismissal came sharply into question in the lean budget year of 2010. The ACLU challenged the constitutionality of seniority-based provisions on the basis that such policies have a disparate impact on students in poverty. In 2011, California schools sent layoff notices to about 20,000 teachers on a seniority basis, and generally did not renew first- and second-year teachers.
In 2012, an advocacy group called Students Matter sponsored a set of lawsuits against the state of California, seeking to strike down state laws that codify tenure and seniority practices. The basis of the suit was that these practices thwart students' right to an education, which is guaranteed in the state constitution. The complaint makes for interesting reading. The case, called Vergara v California, went to trial in January, 2014 and was closed in August 2016 after failing on appeal. The proponents' and opponents' coverage of the proceedings include well-written explanations of each side's view of the issue.
Education Trust West explained the impact of seniority-based employment rules coherently in its report Victims of the Churn. The report criticizes "bumping" rights with particular vigor (see graphic).
Updated September 2018, December 2021
Search all lesson and blog content here.
Login with Email
We will send your Login Link to your email
address. Click on the link and you will be
logged into Ed100. No more passwords to
remember!
Questions & Comments
To comment or reply, please sign in .
Jeff Camp - Founder September 23, 2021 at 1:04 pm
Susannah Baxendale January 14, 2019 at 11:31 am
Caryn January 15, 2019 at 9:23 am
Jeff Camp - Founder April 5, 2017 at 7:11 pm
Jeff Camp January 11, 2017 at 4:39 pm
Albert Stroberg May 1, 2016 at 6:44 pm
Jeff Camp - Founder April 14, 2016 at 11:50 pm
germanb July 7, 2015 at 9:35 pm
Marcellus McRae Presents Plaintiffs' Closing Arguments in Vergara v. California on Vimeo
http://vimeo.com/90273109
Tara Massengill April 22, 2015 at 11:56 am
Jeff Camp - Founder January 15, 2015 at 11:33 am
"71 percent said layoff decisions should be based partly or entirely on classroom performance; 24 percent supported basing layoff decisions almost entirely on seniority."
"15 percent said tenure in two years or less was appropriate"
http://edsource.org/2015/teacher-survey-change-tenure-layoff-laws
Carol Kocivar - Ed100 October 25, 2014 at 1:39 pm
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1282339-judgement-vergara-judge-affirms-ruling.html
The State has filed a notice of appeal:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1283281-teacher-vergara-canoticeofappeal082914.html
Carol Kocivar - Ed100 June 10, 2014 at 12:20 pm
On June 10,2014, the Superior Court of California in a tentative decision found the challenged statutes unconstitutional.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1184998-vergara-tentativedecision061014.html
In a press statement, the California Teachers Association advises the decision will be appealed.
http://www.cta.org/en/Issues-and-Action/Ongoing-Issues/Vergara-Trial1.aspx
David B. Cohen April 7, 2011 at 12:59 pm
1. While we all use the word "tenure" it must be clarified that K-12 teachers do not have the same academic liberties that university professors enjoy with their "tenure." The main benefit of "permanent status" is the due process - that administrators must show cause for firing a teacher with that status.
2. There's no denying that a system strictly based on seniority in a district has flaws. I'm quite sympathetic to the view that the needs of a school should be considered, so that you don't keep destabilizing the same campuses over and over. However, I do not trust most of the people who talk about reforming the system because they seem more interested in firing teachers than fighting for adequate funding to avoid layoffs, or robust evaluation systems needed to measure quality (because test scores don't work).
3. Though it's not the stated focus of your post, I hope people recognize that you're pointing out systemic problems; it's not possible to lay the blame at any one doorstep, be it the union, administration, or district. The fixes for this problem will not come from "either/or" decisions, but rather a broad set of solutions aimed at every part of the problem: teacher training and professional development, union willingness to negotiate, improved training and ongoing support for principals, reformed governance and procedures especially for large districts, and most importantly, adequate funding for schools.
Dominic Brewer April 12, 2011 at 12:10 pm