Defense Expert Agrees that Ineffective Teachers Inflict Severe Harm on Students

Defense Expert testifies that “[u]ltimately, schools are there for students and if students don’t learn, then there is no point in having schools.” Watch Video of Cross-Examination of Intervenors’ Expert Witness in Vergara v. California

Testimony resumed today in the education equality trial, Vergara v. California.  Intervenors—California Teachers Association and California Federation of Teachers— and the State Defendants called their first witness, Dr. Susan Moore Johnson, to the stand.  Plaintiffs’ lead co-counsel, Marcellus A. McRae, conducted the cross-examination of Dr. Johnson.

Once Dr. Johnson completed her testimony near the end of today’s proceedings, Plaintiffs called Sandi Jacobs, Vice President and Managing Director for State Policy at the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), to the stand.  Ms. Jacobs provided her credentials to the court before the court was adjourned for the day. Plaintiffs Counsel Kyle A. Withers began examination of Ms. Jacobs.

Testimony by Dr. Susan Moore Johnson—Intervenors’ Witness During her direct examination, Dr. Johnson agreed with Plaintiffs that all students should have effective teachers and that teacher quality is the most important in-school determinant of student learning.

Further, during cross-examination, Dr. Johnson agreed with several of Plaintiffs’ arguments, including the following statements:

• Teachers are the most important in-school factor affecting a students’ academic achievement.
• Effective teachers matter.
• All students should have effective teachers.
• The goal of schools is to educate students.
• Teacher effectiveness should play a role in tenure and dismissal decisions.
• Grossly ineffective teachers should be dismissed.
• The presence of grossly ineffective teachers undermines the teaching environment at a school.
• Inexperienced teachers tend to be overrepresented in high-poverty, high-minority schools.
• Low-income students are more likely to have ineffective teachers.
• Low-income students have a disproportionate number of ineffective teachers.
• The dismissal process for teachers with tenure is expensive and time consuming.

Watch the entirety of Dr. Johnson’s cross-examination:

During her testimony, Dr. Johnson also discussed teachers’ professional development and improvement programs, specifically Peer Assistance and Review (PAR). Dr. Johnson acknowledged during cross-examination that her knowledge of PAR programs in California is limited to a single study of San Juan Unified School District.  Dr. Johnson further agreed that PAR is not a replacement for the need to dismiss teachers under the Dismissal Statutes.

During her direct examination, Intervenors also asked Dr. Johnson to provide her opinion on seniority-based teacher layoffs.  However, during cross-examination, Dr. Johnson confirmed that she had not even seen the “Last-in, First-out” (LIFO) Layoff Statute prior to being retained by Intervenors in this action. Dr. Johnson further acknowledged that she had never conducted an analysis of California’s LIFO Statute, its impact on the state, or its purported benefits for students in California, nor has she ever conducted any research into the effect of seniority-based layoffs in schools that serve predominately minority students.

Here’s What Defendants and Intervenors Are Trying to Argue and Why Their Arguments Do Not Hold Water

During today’s proceedings, Intervenors’ questioning insinuated that any harm caused by the dismissal laws is the fault of administrators, not the laws themselves.

Superintendents from across the state, including Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Superintendent Dr. John Deasy, have testified that students suffer harm because of the Challenged Statutes, regardless of how well districts are managed.

During his testimony on February 7, Kareem Weaver, the Executive Director of the Bay Area chapter of New Leaders and a former principal in the Oakland Unified School District, noted that even well-managed school districts cannot function within these laws, noting:“I wish—I wish it was the case that my efficiency as a manager or my capacity to do the things I’m supposed to do would allow me to address certain issues related to personnel in an efficient way. I wish that was the case, because if it was the case, man, I would have moved heaven and earth to do it.”