On March 27, 2014, the trial for Vergara v. California concluded with Judge Rolf M. Treu of the California Superior Court deciding that three education statutes violated the California Constitution. The case began when nine California public school children, with the aid of Students Matter, a nonprofit organization dedicated to equal access to quality public education, filed a suit contesting the constitutionality of the permanent employment statute, dismissal statute, and "Last-In, First-Out" Layoff statute. The permanent employment statute forces administrators to either grant or deny permanent employment to teachers after an evaluation period of less than 16 months. Essentially, this statute allowed teachers to gain tenure before administrators could evaluate their long-term efficacy. The dismissal statute created many barriers to firing a teachers for reasons of ineffective teaching, including an eventual cost to the state of hundreds of thousands of dollars per dismissal. Out of 275,000 teachers statewide, 2.2 teachers are dismissed for unsatisfactory performance per year on average, which amounts to 0.0008 percent. The "Last-In, First-Out" Layoff statute forces administrators to base layoffs on seniority, with no regard for teachers' performance in the classroom. Judge Treu called the education system's blatant disregard for teacher performance "unfathomable" and struck down the statutes.
While I believe that the principle behind this suit, putting the education of children ahead of the job security of adults, is morally defensible, there are many real-world implications to this decision that give me pause. First, the tenure that teachers within the California school system received was intended to draw talented individuals to the teaching profession, and to compensate them for the below average pay. Without the promise of tenure or significant increase in teacher salary, it is possible that many worthy teaching candidates will choose to pursue careers in other fields. If this shift occurs, then children's education will still deteriorate as untalented individuals populate the profession.
Second, I am wary of the backers for education reform in the form of legislative overhaul. Prior to Vergara v. California, the nation underwent another major education overhaul called Common Core, which rewrote the curriculum for public schools. Out of the 60 people on the curriculum committee, only one of them had previously served as a teacher, and many of them were seen as puppets for powerful Fortune 500 CEOs. While I advocate the changes made by Vergara v. California, the committee behind the next round of education reform should have better oversight with fewer ulterior motives, which leads to the next problem with the decision.
Without seniority governing pay scale as well as retention, the school system must decide on a new system of evaluation which is sure to carry bias. If teachers are evaluated on test scores, then there will be tremendous incentive to teach for the test with no regard for the actual education of the students. If teachers are evaluated based on student evaluations, then the teachers have an incentive to keep the students happy, which may not be in the students' best interests. If teachers are evaluated based on parent evaluations, then the teachers would have to cater to the parents. Without the objective measurement of seniority, the evaluation system becomes subjective and hard to control.
The most positive effect of this decision lies in its weakening of teacher's unions. As Milton Friedman mentioned, one of the stalwarts to true education reform lies in the political and social power of teacher's unions that are invested in the current form of education. This decision showed weakness within the teacher's unions abilities to govern their hiring practices, and this decision will certainly be used as precedent in future litigations with regard to education reform. While the suit was definitely well-intentioned, I believe that the current school system will have very little reason to do more than the bare minimum until they are faced with publicly-funded competition.
While I believe that the principle behind this suit, putting the education of children ahead of the job security of adults, is morally defensible, there are many real-world implications to this decision that give me pause. First, the tenure that teachers within the California school system received was intended to draw talented individuals to the teaching profession, and to compensate them for the below average pay. Without the promise of tenure or significant increase in teacher salary, it is possible that many worthy teaching candidates will choose to pursue careers in other fields. If this shift occurs, then children's education will still deteriorate as untalented individuals populate the profession.
Second, I am wary of the backers for education reform in the form of legislative overhaul. Prior to Vergara v. California, the nation underwent another major education overhaul called Common Core, which rewrote the curriculum for public schools. Out of the 60 people on the curriculum committee, only one of them had previously served as a teacher, and many of them were seen as puppets for powerful Fortune 500 CEOs. While I advocate the changes made by Vergara v. California, the committee behind the next round of education reform should have better oversight with fewer ulterior motives, which leads to the next problem with the decision.
Without seniority governing pay scale as well as retention, the school system must decide on a new system of evaluation which is sure to carry bias. If teachers are evaluated on test scores, then there will be tremendous incentive to teach for the test with no regard for the actual education of the students. If teachers are evaluated based on student evaluations, then the teachers have an incentive to keep the students happy, which may not be in the students' best interests. If teachers are evaluated based on parent evaluations, then the teachers would have to cater to the parents. Without the objective measurement of seniority, the evaluation system becomes subjective and hard to control.
The most positive effect of this decision lies in its weakening of teacher's unions. As Milton Friedman mentioned, one of the stalwarts to true education reform lies in the political and social power of teacher's unions that are invested in the current form of education. This decision showed weakness within the teacher's unions abilities to govern their hiring practices, and this decision will certainly be used as precedent in future litigations with regard to education reform. While the suit was definitely well-intentioned, I believe that the current school system will have very little reason to do more than the bare minimum until they are faced with publicly-funded competition.
No comments:
Post a Comment