Third Week of Vergara v. California Concludes With Expert Testimony About the Harm and Disparate Adverse Impact Caused By Seniority-Based Layoffs

Dr. Arun Ramanathan:  “[R]everse seniority layoffs exacerbate a terrible situation… [O]ften your least effective teachers [are] placed in your highest poverty schools, while other teachers who wanted to be there, wanted to teach there, and were producing great gains there [are] removed from those schools.”

Dr. Arun Ramanathan, Executive Director of Education Trust—West (EdTrust-West), completed his testimony today in the education equality trial, Vergara v. California.  Over two days of testimony, Dr. Ramanathan testified about the student achievement gaps between different ethnic and socioeconomic groups in California, the effects of seniority-based layoffs on these student achievement gaps, the efforts of school districts to deviate from seniority-based layoffs, and the significant likelihood that school districts will announce reductions in force in future school years.

Dr. Ramanathan continued his testimony today under redirect examination by Plaintiffs’ lead co-counsel, Marcellus A. McRae.

Dr. Ramanathan’s testimony supports Plaintiffs’ claims that seniority-based layoffs under the “Last-in, First-out” (LIFO) Statute infringe on students’ constitutional right to educational equality. According to Dr. Ramanathan, the LIFO Statute forces districts to lay off highly effective teachers they would otherwise retain, and to retain ineffective teachers they would otherwise lay off. The LIFO Statute also imposes a disparate adverse impact on poor and minority students, who are more likely to be taught by grossly ineffective teachers than wealthier, non-minority students. Low-income and minority students are also more likely than their peers to be taught by newer teachers and therefore lose a higher percentage of their teachers when seniority-based layoffs occur.

Testimony by Dr. Arun Ramanathan

Yesterday, Dr. Ramanathan testified that minority and low-income students experience significant achievement gaps compared to non-minority, more affluent students, noting: “[L]ow-income students and African-American and Latino students in Los Angeles Unified School District [do] not have equitable access to the district’s most effective teachers… In English Language Arts, non-low-income students, 43 percent have access to highly effective teaching in comparison to 26 percent of low-income students.”

Dr. Ramanathan also testified that seniority-based layoffs under the LIFO Statute “result in the loss of highly effective teachers from schools that … sorely need these teachers, and students that sorely need these teachers in order to close achievement gaps…”

During his testimony today, Dr. Ramanathan spoke about how his background as a special education teacher has informed his opinion about the achievement gap in California:

• “[O]ne of my jobs was to essentially identify, as part of a team, whether or not kids had a disability…And, I kept seeing the same kids coming from one specific classroom, and my sense was that they didn’t have a disability. So, I actually went and tested every child in that classroom…And to my stunned amazement, almost all of the students in that classroom were two to three grade levels behind …. [I]t was almost as if [those students] were invisible. Their achievement itself was invisible.”

Speaking on the effects of the LIFO Statute, Dr. Ramanathan noted that “reverse seniority layoffs exacerbate a terrible situation” because they “result[] in teachers being bumped…[O]ften your least effective teachers [are] placed in your highest poverty schools, while other teachers who wanted to be there, wanted to teach there, and were producing great gains there [are] removed from those schools.”

Dr. Ramanathan also spoke about the difficulties associated with trying to work around the seniority-based provisions of the LIFO Statute, noting that “if you want to try it, it’s going to be incredibly difficult, and you’re not going to get in the end the result you’re looking for.”

During cross-examination, Defendants questioned Dr. Ramanathan regarding his understanding of the practical applications of student achievement data.  In response, Dr. Ramanathan stated:

• “As a researcher I want to know what the end result is for kids, all the policy changes and practice changes inside school districts and schools is it going to result in a closing of that gap, and the gap is a numerical concept, but the truth is on the other side of that numerical concept are kids and the essence is what’s happening to them and their ability to access a better life, to graduate from high school, to go to college, to succeed, that’s where it becomes important.”