Our Responses to the CTA's Talking Points on Vergara v. California

Wire service photographs from the\u00a0filing of Martinez v. Malloy<\/em><\/a><\/li>\r\n \t

Press release announcing\u00a0Martinez v. Malloy<\/em><\/em><\/a><\/li>\r\n \t

Audio recording of Martinez v. Malloy\u00a0<\/em>launch teleconference call with national media<\/a><\/li>\r\n \t

Martinez v. Malloy<\/em>\u00a0Legal Complaint<\/a><\/li>\r\n \t

Martinez v. Malloy\u00a0<\/em>Fact Sheets<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\nMedia Contact<\/h2>\r\nTo set up an individual briefing on the case and\/or to schedule media interviews, please contact Manny Rivera at\u00a0 press@studentsmatter.org<\/a>\u00a0or (323) 892-2080.\r\n
\u00a0Statements of Support<\/h2>\r\n
Jennifer Alexander | CEO, Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now (ConnCAN)<\/h4>\r\n $\"Jennifer$ \u201cWe stand with the plaintiffs in this case who \u2014 as other civil rights and social justice advocates before them \u2014 are seeking relief from the courts when other methods have failed them. This case is fundamentally about addressing our highly inequitable access to quality schools. Our current state laws knowingly force children to attend chronically failing schools and systematically deny them access to better-performing ones. When all other methods have failed them, the parents have turned to the courts to resolve this unconstitutional inequity.\u00a0Generations of students have suffered because of barriers that restrict access to quality public school options, especially in areas where our students are most vulnerable. This systemic inequality of opportunity for parents and students who have few other choices hurts everyone over time. Improving these outcomes is a moral and economic imperative.\u201d\r\n
Shavar Jeffries | President, Democrats For Education Reform (DFER)<\/h4>\r\n $\"shavar-226x300\"$ \u201cWe support the four Connecticut parents and families who are choosing to fight to ensure that their students \u2013 and students across the state \u2013 have access to a high-quality public education, no matter their zip code. Every child deserves the chance to fulfill his or her limitless potential, and while it\u2019s unfortunate the families had to turn to the courts in order to receive the equitable opportunities they are entitled to, we stand with them in their commitment to addressing one of the greatest civil rights and social justice issues of our time. We look forward to this case\u2019s next steps and are hopeful that Connecticut\u2019s students and their best interests will prevail.\u201d","post_title":"Martinez v. Malloy Press Kit","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"press-kit","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2016-08-26 13:10:18","post_modified_gmt":"2016-08-26 20:10:18","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":6035,"guid":"http:\/\/studentsmatter.org\/?post_type=case&p=6069","menu_order":0,"post_type":"case","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":6065,"post_author":"8","post_date":"2016-08-24 07:44:49","post_date_gmt":"2016-08-24 14:44:49","post_content":"","post_title":"Timeline","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"timeline","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2018-01-31 12:40:25","post_modified_gmt":"2018-01-31 20:40:25","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":6035,"guid":"http:\/\/studentsmatter.org\/?post_type=case&p=6065","menu_order":1,"post_type":"case","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":6035,"post_author":"8","post_date":"2016-08-23 14:40:32","post_date_gmt":"2016-08-23 21:40:32","post_content":"Every child deserves to go to a quality public school that helps him or her achieve the American Dream. Unfortunately, for too many Connecticut students, that isn\u2019t the reality. That\u2019s why a group of parents and students filed Martinez v. Malloy<\/em><\/a>, a federal lawsuit against the State of Connecticut challenging a set of state laws and policies that knowingly and actively prevent students from accessing even minimally acceptable public school options.<\/strong>\r\n\r\nThroughout Connecticut and across the country, many public schools \u2014 including magnet, traditional and charter schools \u2014 are delivering a world-class education to students of all backgrounds. With the same amount of public funding, students in high-performing schools are learning Mandarin, playing instruments, coding and computing, thinking critically and preparing to meet the challenges of the 21^{st<\/sup> century. We know what works. But miles-long waitlists prove that while there is an overwhelming demand for great schools across the state, we just don\u2019t have the seats to accommodate every child.\r\n\r\n\r\n}
Why don\u2019t we have enough quality public schools?<\/strong><\/h2>\r\nWhy aren\u2019t we expanding and replicating success so that every student in every community has access to the golden ticket of an excellent education?\r\n\r\nDespite the United States Constitution\u2019s guarantee of equal protection and due process, the State of Connecticut has created a public education system in which zip code and luck of the draw determine whether students have a shot at a quality public education. Broken, outdated policies have limited the opening of new public schools, and capped enrollment at existing quality public schools \u2014 especially those serving the state\u2019s urban centers.\r\n\r\nThis broken system has created one of the largest achievement gaps in the nation, denying students of color and those from low-income families the equal opportunity they deserve.<\/strong>\r\n\r\nIt\u2019s time for the state\u2019s leaders to justify to Connecticut parents why our education system limits the size and expansion of quality public schools, while thousands of students languish on waitlists with no access to an adequate education. Specifically, Martinez v. Malloy <\/em>challenges the following state laws:\r\n
\r\n \t
Moratorium on New Magnet Schools:<\/strong> Connecticut has instituted a moratorium on new magnet schools (Public Act No. 09-6, <\/em>22; Public Act No. 15-177, <\/em>\u00a7\u00a0<\/em>1)<\/em>, despite the fact that Connecticut\u2019s magnet schools consistently outperform inner-city traditional district schools.<\/li>\r\n \t
Cap on Charter Public Schools: <\/strong>Connecticut\u2019s laws governing charter public schools (Conn. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 10-66ee(c)-(d), 10-66bb(a), 10-66bb(g))<\/em> prevent high-performing schools from opening or expanding in the State, despite the fact that Connecticut\u2019s few charter public schools consistently outperform inner-city traditional district schools.<\/li>\r\n \t
Open-Choice Enrollment Penalties: <\/strong>Connecticut\u2019s inter-district Open Choice enrollment program (<\/em> Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7\u00a010-266aa(c), 10-266aa(e), 10-266aa(f), 10-266aa(g), 10-266aa(h))<\/em> penalizes school districts that accept students from inner-city school districts, thus dooming the viability of the very program designed to provide Connecticut\u2019s students with quality public school options.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\nEvery family deserves a quality public school in their neighborhood. Martinez v. Malloy<\/em> is about parents standing up and demanding answers for a broken system. <\/strong>\r\n\r\nThe Martinez v. Malloy <\/em>Plaintiffs are supported by Students Matter, the organizational sponsor of the landmark Vergara v. California<\/em>\u00a0lawsuit<\/strong><\/a>. During the Vergara<\/em> trial, parents forced the State of California to defend, under oath, laws and policies that are not in the best interests of students. The lack of any student-centered justification for those laws \u2014 put on display for the public to see \u2014 changed the national conversation about teacher quality. We hope to have the same effect in Connecticut and across the country when discussing barriers and access to quality schools.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_6080\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"1703\"] $\"Martinez$ Martinez v. Malloy<\/em> Student Plaintiff Jose Martinez[\/caption]\r\n
Students\u2019 Rights Under the U.S. Constitution<\/strong><\/h2>\r\n\u00a0<\/em>Martinez v. Malloy<\/em> was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The student plaintiffs argue that Connecticut\u2019s actions, which the State knows are causing severe harm to tens of thousands of students of color and those from low-income families, infringe upon the constitutional rights of Connecticut children. Specifically, the challenged laws violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.\r\n\r\nAfter the State\u2019s repeated failure to ensure that all Connecticut children have access to quality public schools, the student plaintiffs have asked the federal court to intervene. We have seen what excellent public education looks like. It\u2019s time for parents to buck the system and demand more great schools for our students.<\/strong>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_6088\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"1730\"] $\"Martinez$ Martinez v. Malloy<\/em>\u00a0Student Plaintiffs Jaidyn (left) and Jorr (right) with\u00a0Their Mom, Parent Plaintiff Dahlia Bryan[\/caption]\r\nAdditional Information & Materials<\/strong><\/h2>\r\n\r\n \t
Martinez v. Malloy<\/em> Legal Complaint<\/a><\/li>\r\n \t
Martinez v. Malloy <\/em>Fact Sheets<\/a><\/li>\r\n \t
Press release announcing\u00a0Martinez v. Malloy<\/em><\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>","post_title":"Martinez v. Malloy","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"martinez","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2016-08-26 12:45:59","post_modified_gmt":"2016-08-26 19:45:59","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"http:\/\/studentsmatter.org\/?post_type=case&p=6035","menu_order":0,"post_type":"case","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":5663,"post_author":"9","post_date":"2016-02-29 13:27:53","post_date_gmt":"2016-02-29 21:27:53","post_content":"Students matter. And so does the evidence.<\/h2>\r\nDuring oral argument in the appeal of Vergara v. California<\/em>, attorneys for the State of California and the State\u2019s two largest teachers unions made a number of statements that directly contradict the evidence.\r\n\r\nHere, we respond with the facts.<\/strong>\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n
DURING ORAL ARGUMENT<\/h3>\r\nTHE COURT:<\/strong> \u201cPlaintiffs had to show that facially neutral statutes inevitably cause disparate treatment. Has that been shown by the evidence? Has it been shown that the consequences are so pervasive, clear, and unavoidable that discrimination occurred?\u201d\r\nSTATE'S COUNSEL:<\/strong> \u201cIt has not, your honor.\u201d\r\n
THE FACTS<\/h3>\r\nEvidence from trial:<\/strong>\r\n
\r\n \t
California Department of Education (Defendant):<\/strong> \u201cUnfortunately, the most vulnerable students, those attending high-poverty, low-performing schools, are far more likely than their wealthy peers to attend schools have a disproportionate number of\u2026ineffective teachers and administrators. Because minority children disproportionately attend such schools, minority students bear the brunt of staffing inequalities\u201d^{1<\/sup><\/li>\r\n \t}
Dr. Arun Ramanathan:<\/strong> \u201c[R]everse seniority layoffs simply exacerbate a terrible situation. They result in\u2026 often your least effective teachers being placed in your highest poverty schools.\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t
Dr. Thomas Kane:<\/strong> \u201c[T]here is a mechanical relationship between premature tenure decisions, difficult dismissal decisions, and the accumulation of ineffective teachers\u201d in low-income and minority schools.<\/li>\r\n \t
Dr. Dan Goldhaber:<\/strong> Analyzed thousands of seniority-based layoff notices and found that \u201cAfrican-American students were disproportionately likely to have their teachers receive a [layoff] notice\u201d relative to other students.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n $\"StudentsMatter$ \r\n
\r\n\r\nShare: <\/span>\u00a0<\/a><\/a>\r\n
<\/a><\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n
DURING ORAL ARGUMENT<\/h3>\r\nUNIONS' COUNSEL:<\/strong> \u201cIn no district is there the so-called \u2018Dance of the Lemons.\u2019\u201d\r\n
THE FACTS<\/h3>\r\nAccording to the Superior Court ruling in Vergara v. California<\/em>:<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \t
\u201cThe evidence was also clear that the churning (aka \u2018Dance of the Lemons\u2019) of teachers caused by the lack of effective dismissal statutes and LIFO affect high-poverty and minority students disproportionately.\u201d<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\nEvidence from trial:<\/strong>\r\n
\r\n \t
California Department of Education (Defendant):<\/strong> \u201c[T]ransfers often function as a mechanism for teacher removal\u201d and \u201cpoorly performing teachers generally are removed from high-income or higher-performing schools and placed in low-income and low-performing schools.\u201d^{2<\/sup><\/li>\r\n \t}
Dr. Thomas Kane:<\/strong> \u201c[L]ess-effective teachers tend to be shifted into those schools where there are more vacancies. And those are the schools where there are disproportionate numbers of African-American and Latino Students.\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t
Assistant Superintendent Mark Douglas (Fullerton School District):<\/strong> Principals \u201cuse dance of the lemons\u201d to \u201cmov[e] people of less skills, poor performance\u201d to predominately low-income and minority schools.<\/li>\r\n \t
Principal Bill Kappenhagen (San Francisco Unified School District):<\/strong> Ineffective teachers in San Francisco \u201cget shuffled around from school to school to school,\u201d often ending up at schools serving high-poverty, high-minority communities.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\nTo learn more about the Dance of the Lemons<\/strong>, see this helpful infographic.<\/strong><\/a>\r\n\r\n $\"StudentsMatter$ \r\n\r\n\r\nShare: <\/span>\u00a0<\/a><\/a>\r\n
<\/a><\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n
DURING ORAL ARGUMENT<\/h3>\r\nSTATE'S COUNSEL:<\/strong> \u201cMy colleague shared a number of troubling anecdotes, and I think everyone in this room can agree, that there\u2019s ample room for improvement of our education system.\u201d\r\n
THE FACTS<\/h3>\r\nWe agree that there is considerable room for improvement in our education system and believe that an essential step in ensuring this result is to provide all<\/em> kids with access to effective educators. Research shows that quality teachers make the difference \u2014 not only in students\u2019 academic performance, but also in their lifetime success.\r\n\r\nEvidence from trial:<\/strong>\r\n
\r\n \t
According to the testimony of Dr. Thomas Kane,<\/strong> a student assigned to a grossly ineffective math teacher in Los Angeles loses 11.73 months of learning per year compared to a student assigned to a teacher of average effectiveness.<\/li>\r\n \t
According to the testimony of Dr. Thomas Kane,<\/strong> a student assigned to a grossly ineffective English Language Arts teacher in Los Angeles loses 9.54 months of learning per year compared to a student assigned to a teacher of average effectiveness.<\/li>\r\n \t
According to the testimony of Dr. Raj Chetty,<\/strong> a student assigned to a single grossly ineffective teacher loses $50,000 in potential lifetime earnings compared to a student assigned to a teacher of average effectiveness.<\/li>\r\n \t
According to the testimony of Dr. Raj Chetty,<\/strong> a classroom of 28 children taught by a grossly ineffective teacher loses $1.4 million in lifetime earnings. If 3 percent of California\u2019s 275,000 teachers are grossly ineffective, as the State's own expert witness testified) and each grossly ineffective teacher has a class of 25 students per year, this means that California students lose $11.6 billion in lifetime earnings each year.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n $\"StudentsMatter$ \r\n
\r\n\r\nShare: <\/span>\u00a0<\/a><\/a>\r\n
<\/a><\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n
DURING ORAL ARGUMENT<\/h3>\r\nUNIONS' COUNSEL:<\/strong> \u201cThese statutes actually were designed and have the effect of improving the overall quality of the teaching pool, because they make the teaching profession more attractive.\u201d\r\n
THE FACTS<\/h3>\r\nTestimony from teachers during trial showed that high-quality teachers do not enter the teaching profession because of the promise of permanent employment:\r\n
\r\n \t
Maggie Pulley, Teacher, Los Angeles Unified School District:<\/strong> \u201cI was going into the profession because I thought it would be a good fit, meaningful, challenging. I wasn\u2019t looking for a guaranteed job.\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t
Jonathan Moss, Teacher, Compton Unified School District:<\/strong> \u201cI became a teacher because I wanted to teach. I wanted to impact my students. I knew that I was becoming a teacher because my students needed me. It had nothing to do with job protection. It was because I wanted to provide a service to those that I had felt...didn\u2019t have opportunities that I had growing up.\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t
Most states have far better teacher employment laws than California with less burdensome, less costly and more streamlined dismissal policies, and those states are still able to attract and retain high-quality teachers.^{3<\/sup><\/li>\r\n \t}
According to a recent Teach Plus poll,<\/strong><\/a> 63 percent of California principals believe that the state's seniority-based layoff system is viewed negatively by people who are considering joining the teaching profession.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n $\"StudentsMatter$ \r\n
\r\n\r\nShare: <\/span>\u00a0<\/a><\/a>\r\n
<\/a><\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n
DURING ORAL ARGUMENT<\/h3>\r\nUNIONS' COUNSEL:<\/strong> \u201c[W]e don\u2019t know what grossly ineffective means...\u201d\r\n
THE FACTS<\/h3>\r\nSTUDENTS' COUNSEL:<\/strong> \u201cCounsel just mentioned that we don\u2019t know what grossly ineffective teachers are. We do. The Governor knows. The Department of Education knows. The unions know. Everybody in the courtroom knew, we asked every witness, and everybody agreed that it was teachers that were not advancing learning in students. Everyone agreed that there were grossly ineffective teachers in the system.\u201d Theodore J. Boutrous, Lead Counsel for student plaintiffs\r\n\r\nEvidence from trial:<\/strong>\r\n
\r\n \t
Jonathan Raymond, Sacramento City Superintendent:<\/strong> There are objective ways to measure teaching impact on student learning by \u201clooking at student work through the use of rubrics, looking at assessment data, both formative and summative assessment data.\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t
Dr. John Deasy, LAUSD Superintendent:<\/strong> LAUSD uses \u201cmyriad ... sources to make judgments on a teacher\u2019s overall effectiveness,\u201d including Academic Growth Over Time, an \u201calgorithm [that] measures student learning gains\u201d and accounts for \u201cother factors so that those students\u2019 learning gains ... can be attributed to the teacher.\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t
Dr. Susan Moore Johnson (witness for Defense):<\/strong> \u201cStudent test scores should be used in assessing teacher effectiveness to confirm other means of assessing a teacher\u2019s performance.\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t
State's Counsel:<\/strong> \u201cBut of course the state would concede. There are 277,000 teachers in the state. There will be a wide variety of teacher effectiveness with such a large teacher workforce...\u201d<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n $\"StudentsMatter$ \r\n
\r\n\r\nShare: <\/span>\u00a0<\/a><\/a>\r\n
<\/a><\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n
DURING ORAL ARGUMENT<\/h3>\r\nSTATE'S COUNSEL:<\/strong> \u201cEven if we were to assume for the sake of argument that some school districts were saddled with some number of ineffective teachers, there\u2019s no inherent reason why they couldn\u2019t assign those teachers to white or affluent students as opposed to poor or minority students, or evenly distribute them among their district.\u201d\r\n
THE FACTS<\/h3>\r\nThere was no evidence presented at trial that districts can effectuate large-scale involuntary transfers of teachers between schools; to the contrary, the evidence showed that involuntary transfers of teachers lead to grievances and litigation.\r\n\r\n \r\n
\r\n \t
According to the testimony of Dr. John Deasy:<\/strong>\r\n
\r\n \t
Q:\u00a0\u201c[T]he district can require the teacher to transfer, correct, for educational program \u2014 for the best interest of the educational program of the district were?\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t
A: \u201cI believe the answer is that the district could exercise its right and it has been aggressively grieved in the past... A grievance has been filed when you force a teacher to go where a teacher does not wish to go.\u201d<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n \t
According to the testimony of Dr. John Deasy:<\/strong>\r\n
\r\n \t
Q:\u00a0 \u201cI wanted to know if there were any other limitations on the ability of LAUSD to simply transfer teachers from one district, or one school, rather, to another within the district in order to try to close achievement gaps other than what you\u2019ve testified to?\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t
A:\u00a0 \u201cWell, one of the -- I don\u2019t know if I testified to this, but the obvious limitation is you have to have a spot to transfer the teacher to.\u00a0 We are a declining enrollment district, which means we are not increasing teaching positions, they are decreasing because you have less students.\u00a0 The second limitation is one that is -- one that deals with environmental context, and that is parents frequently are extremely upset when a teacher is either moved from their school to go to another school or a teacher is sent to that school whom they do not want to come to that school, so that every one of these usually results in some kind of community protest.\u201d<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n \t
According to the testimony of Mr. Troy Christmas, Director of Labor Strategy for the Oakland Unified School District,<\/strong> Oakland \u201cwould use a provision in [its] collective bargaining agreement to involuntarily transfer [poorly performing teachers] to other schools,\u201d but this still did not allow the \u201cdistrict to remove all grossly ineffective teachers\u201d because \u201cthere were simply more than [the district] w[as] able to either transfer, get to retire\u2026 it\u2019s a constant balance.\u201d<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n \r\n
\r\n \t
The evidence also proved that the Challenged Statutes lead to a pernicious and well-documented phenomenon known colloquially as the \u201cDance of the Lemons.\u201d\u00a0 Because dismissal is not a viable option for districts, principals seeking to improve the teaching staff at their own schools are forced to try to transfer ineffective teachers to other schools within the district.<\/li>\r\n \t
Unfortunately, the schools that bear the brunt of these transfers are schools serving predominantly low-income and minority students, for two reasons:\u00a0(1) Those schools typically have more vacancies to fill, in part because of the LIFO Statute, and\u00a0 (2) Students at those schools typically have \u201cfamilies who aren\u2019t used to the education system... don\u2019t know what to look for in a great teacher... [and] won\u2019t complain,\u201d according to testimony from Fullerton Unified School District Asst. Superintendent Mark Douglas.<\/strong><\/li>\r\n \t
Dr. Thomas Kane testified<\/strong> that the Challenged Statutes \u201cfunction like a lemon accumulation machine\u201d in high-vacancy, high-minority schools because \u201cdistricts have to make tenure[] decisions prematurely and\u2026 it is difficult to make dismissal decisions later.\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t
In a published report, the California Department of Education<\/strong> itself admits that administrators \u201cencourag[e] ... poorly performing teacher[s] to transfer\u201d to other schools because teacher dismissal proceedings have \u201ca very limited likelihood of success\u201d and transfer is therefore \u201cthe most practical course of action at the individual school level.\u201d<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n^{1<\/sup> Evaluating Progress Toward Equitable Distribution of Effective Educators\r\n^{2<\/sup> Evaluating Progress Toward Equitable Distribution of Effective Educators\r\n^{3<\/sup> http:\/\/studentsmatter.org\/case\/vergara\/permanent-employment\/<\/a>\r\n^4<\/sup>http:\/\/www.teachplus.org\/sites\/default\/files\/publication\/pdf\/not_so_golden.pdf<\/a>\r\n\r\n\r\n}}}

Our Responses to the CTA’s Talking Points on Vergara v. California

\u00a0Statements of Support<\/h2>\r\n