The New York Times Editorial
The Vergara v. California ‚Äúruling opens a new chapter in the equal education struggle. It also underscores a shameful problem that has cast a long shadow over the lives of children, not just in California but in the rest of the country as well.‚ÄĚ
Vergara Plaintiffs Deliver Riveting Closing Arguments
Watch Plaintiffs' riveting closing arguments on the final day of the Vergara v. California trial.
Oakland Alliance of Black Educators Endorses Vergara
"We believe the spirit of dedication and making children the priority, as exhibited by educators like Marcus Foster, are necessary ingredients to effectively steward our most precious resource ‚Äď children."
Vergara v. California Case Summary
With the help of Students Matter, nine California public school children filed the statewide lawsuit Vergara v. California against the State of California in May 2012 to strike down the laws handcuffing schools from doing what’s best for kids when it comes to teachers. Meet the Plaintiffs.
The Court‚Äôs historic decision in Vergara v. California reaffirmed the fundamental, Constitutional right of every student to learn from effective teachers and have an equal opportunity to succeed in school. Visit the Students Matter Victory page for the best quotes from Judge Treu‚Äôs ruling, an FAQ on what happens next, and key facts and statistics from the compelling evidence presented at trial.
We think it’s simple: reward and retain excellent teachers and hold those accountable who are failing our children. By striking down the following laws, Vergara v. California will create an opportunity for lawmakers, teachers, administrators and community leaders to design a system that’s good for both teachers and students. Because Californians shouldn’t have to choose: We can create an education system that gives every child a passionate, motivating and effective teacher and gives effective teachers the respect and rewarding careers they deserve.
- Permanent Employment Statute: The permanent employment law forces administrators to either grant or deny permanent employment to teachers after an evaluation period of less than 16 months‚ÄĒbefore new teachers even complete their beginner teacher induction programs and before administrators are able to assess whether a teacher will be effective long-term.
- Dismissal Statutes: The process for dismissing a single ineffective teacher involves a borderline infinite number of steps, requires years of documentation, costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and still, rarely ever works. Out of 275,000 teachers statewide, 2.2 teachers are dismissed for unsatisfactory performance per year on average, which amounts to 0.0008 percent.
- “Last-In, First-Out” (“LIFO”) Layoff Statute: The “LIFO” law forces school districts to base layoffs on seniority alone, with no consideration of teachers‚Äô performance in the classroom.
In May 2013, the state’s two largest teachers unions, the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers, intervened in the case to defend these statutes alongside the State. The two-month trial for Vergara v. California began on January 27, 2014 and concluded on March 27, 2014.
View the full Vergara v. California case timeline.