By John Mooney
But evaluation system NJ lawmakers enacted in 2012 likely to limit the impact of Golden State decision on New Jersey
When a California judge ruled on Tuesday that teacher tenure rights were unconstitutional and violated students’ rights to a good education in that state, the news reverberated 3,000 miles away.
But before anyone thinks it will soon change much in the never-ending debate over teacher tenure in New Jersey — or even in California — think again.
The decision in Vergara v. California found that California’s tenure law allowed the weakest teachers to remain in the classroom — especially in the classrooms of low-income area students.
The ruling specifically cited seniority rights – known as “last in, first out” or LIFO — that prioritized layoffs based on the number of years of employment.
“The logic of this position is unfathomable and therefore constitutionally unsupportable,” wrote Judge Rolf Treu of Los Angeles Superior Court.
A strong rebuke to teacher unions, the powerfully worded decision might turn out to be the first chink nationally in the intractable legal armor of tenure rights for teachers.
But promises of court appeals came quickly. And, even if the ruling is not challenged, it’s not at all clear how much the decision might transcend California and impact states like New Jersey.
Even those inclined to support the decision said the California situation doesn’t really apply to New Jersey.
The most important distinction is that New Jersey has already revised its tenure law in ways that Treu cited as lacking in California, including a clearer path for removing ineffective teachers.
New Jersey’s new tenure law, known as TEACHNJ and enacted in 2012, allows schools districts to remove teachers after two years of substandard evaluations.
“California’s tenure law is not our tenure law,” said Kathleen Nugent, state director for Democrats for Education Reform, a national advocacy group that has pressed for tenure reform. “We can remove ineffective teachers more readily.”
More>>
