John Thompson, teacher and historian, didn’t use the word “sham,” but that was exactly his meaning in this good analysis of the case where the claim has been made that due process for teachers denies the civil rights of students.
The reality, as Thompson notes, is that the lawyers for the plaintiffs aren’t even trying to show that any child has been harmed because of tenure. They aren’t trying because there is no evidence. Teachers in high-performing districts have tenure, as do teachers in low-performing districts. Don’t expect the lawyers to introduce evidence about districts that abolished due process for teachers and closed the achievement gap, because there is none.
Taking away the right of teachers to a fair hearing before an impartial administrator won’t help a single child, and presumably the lawyers know it.
What it will take away is teachers’ academic freedom, and the lawyers don’t care.
What is the point of the Vergara case? It is to attack unions and due process rights for teachers. If teachers serve at the will of administrators, as John Deasy and the corporate reformers want, who will be brave enough to disagree with their principal, or to teach evolution, or to teach a challenged book that offends even a single parent? What teacher will speak out against the attacks on their profession? Surely not those who want to feed their family and pay their mortgage.
John Thompson feels sure that the plaintiffs will lose because they have no evidence for their claim that children lose when their teachers have due process. Let’s hope he is right.

It’s no surprise that John Deasy, corporate hack par excellence, is testifying for the people who want to get rid of tenure.
LikeLike
Here are some other good articles on Vergara:
First, by David Cohen:
or this one — “Eight Problems with the Vergara Lawsuit” :
or another, longer article by Thompson:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-thompson/why-a-nice-philanthropist_b_4598322.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications
or this from Gary Ravani
http://edsource.org/today/2014/declaring-war-on-teachers-rights-wont-improve-childrens-access-to-a-sound-education/56538#.Uu8aXvY7h2L
And this from Bruce Baker which, while it doesn’t address Vergara by name, attacks the arguments behind Vergara:
http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/notes-on-the-seniority-smokescreen/
LikeLike
Here’s another good one from Lorraine Richards, one of our fellow union sisters in Montebello Teachers’ Association:
http://www.sgvtribune.com/opinion/20140124/lawsuit-wrongly-targets-teachers-guest-commentary
“Yet none of the statutes identified in Vergara are depriving students of anything, nor are they violating anyone’s constitutional rights. Years of chronic underfunding, devastating cuts and skyrocketing class sizes may very well be, but fortunately current increases to school funding are starting to turn things around.
“But this lawsuit isn’t concerned with school funding, resources, class sizes, training or anything else actually proven to improve the quality of our schools. Instead it’s cynically attempting to use the state constitution as a weapon to strip away rights, rather than to protect them.
“Stripping away rights and attacking teachers and labor is really what this is all about. The forces behind Vergara are some of the same corporate education ‘reformers’ who have spent the last decade blaming teachers, attacking unions and undermining public schools instead of addressing actual problems facing California students. Supporters of ‘Students Matter,’ the organization behind Vergara, are a Who’s Who of privatized charter and anti-union advocates, represented by a high wattage public relations firm tied to Wal-Mart.”
LikeLike
There’s one argument that the defendents’ lawyers can use.
The Vergara lawyers’ first and star witness—-LAUSD Superintedent John Deasy—made the incredible claim that there is no causal relationship between a child’s impoverished circumstances and that same child’s academic achievement. Presented with a Mount Everest of studies, statistics, and in depth analysis of the specific factors and mechanisms that support the claim that yes, Virginia, poverty does negatively impact a child’s academic outcomes.
“When Finberg asked Deasy if he agreed that other factors, such as family wealth and poverty, influence the success or failure of a student, Deasy said, ‘I believe the statistics correlate, but I don’t believe in causality (of poverty). ‘ ”
In essence, Deasy is laying 100% of the blame for any child from poverty not achieving on a par with their wealthier peers ON THE TEACHERS.
If only those lazy, LIFO unionized teachers at traditional public schools in poor communities would just stop holding back, step it up and bring their A-Game, those kids from homeless situations, foster care, etc. would be achieving on a level with the kids from Beverly Hills and Brentwood. Hence, we need to obliterate any and all job protections or due process rights currently held by those teachers in California.
Okay, John… that’s interesting… Again, ‘overty has no “causal relationship”, you say… ?
Well, John, what comprises “poverty”…? Would you agree that the two main factors are… wait for it, now… “Food and Shelter”… is that right?
Well, John, you recently spearheaded a billion dollar plan—a plan that was just put into effect out here in Los Angeles—known as “Breakfast in the Classroom”—which is exactly as its name indicates… the first 20-30 minutes of every day, the kids eat a breakfast paid for by this billion dollar plan.
On multiple occasions, John, you and other LAUSD district officials have touted the plan along the lines of … “It’s absolutely necessary for a all children, rich and poor, to be well and properly fed if that same child is to achieve academically.. blah-blah-blah… and ‘Breakfast in the Classroom’ is doing just that.. blah-blah-blah… ”
Whoa, whoa… hold it here. If the conditions of poverty—including one of its two primary conditions… “Food” of “Food and Shelter”—has no causal effect on a child’s ability to learn… why do you go around blathering about how the billion dollars spent on “Breakfast in the Classroom” that puts food in the mouths of impoverished students will…. IMPROVE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF THOSE SAME CHILDREN????!!!!!
According to your “no causal factor” thinking, wouldn’t that billion dollars blown on Breakfast in the Classroom be just a big waste of money?
He’s off the stand, so maybe the lawyers fighting the “corporate reform” privatizers can put such questions to some of the other witnesses.
LikeLike
Jack: good point re lack of coherence between touting [and taking credit for] breakfast program and then denying that out-of-school factors—like the myriad effects of poverty—mean nothing.
Remember Geoffrey Canada and the Harlem Children’s Zone? He is also part of the ‘no excuses/poverty is not destiny’ crowd yet he is praised by the leading charterites/privatizers and their MSM enablers for doing precisely those things that alleviate and/or compensate for the effects of poverty and other out-of-school factors.
Their casual doublespeak is shocking only if you think people should walk their own talk and be consistent.
Instead, it’s Marxism Marxism Marxism all the time as they pursue $tudent $ucce$$…
“Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them…well, I’ve got others.”
¿? Groucho.
Rheeally!
Really!
😎
LikeLike
In this lawsuit, the plaintiff’s are only nominally “parents”… the real plaintiffs are billionaires and money-motivated privatizers who are out to destroy our nation’s teachers.
This lawsuit has nothing, NOTHING, NUH-THING to do with providing children with high quality education, or high-quality teachers… that’s just the facade, and the puppet-masters pulling the string know this… they are trying to play the public and court system to advance their ignoble ends.
That’s not hyperbole. This is EXACTLY what is going on.
THESE PEOPLE WANT TO DESTROY THE TEACHING PROFESSION AND THE SYSTEM OF TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS—schools that are transparent to the “public”, that educate all the “public”, and that are accountable to the public via democratically-elected school boards.
Regarding the destruction of our profession, I first heard words to that effect two-and-a-half years ago at UTLA’s LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE (August 2011) in a speech delivered by Warren Fletcher, my current union president:
(go to 06:30)
———————————————-
WARREN FLETCHER, UTLA PRESIDENT:
“Well, I’ve been through a lot. In the past our reactions to each successive wave of bad educational ideas would have been what you might expect: ‘We’re professionals. We’ll do what’s best for the kids despite these bad policies. We’ll just get through this.’ That’s what professionals do!
“But the challenges we face today in Los Angeles are different. THE GOAL of the phony ‘reform’ movement IS NOT TO CHANGE YOUR JOB; IT’S TO ELIMINATE YOUR JOB.
“THEIR GOAL IS NOT TO CHANGE THE TEACHING PROFESSION; IT’S TO ABOLISH TEACHING AS A PROFESSION.
“Teachers are college educated professionals. You are not easily taken in. You see what the current school board majority is trying to do to your profession and to your students. I know that every one of you is ready to stand up and take this fight to the District, ready to take back our schools.
“You are not alone. Your union stands with you.
“We are public school teachers and we are proud of it!”
– – – – – – – –
Indeed, one of the goals of the “reformers”—a goal that goes hand-in-hand with overall privatization—is change teaching from…
————————————-
CATEGORY A … a profession with requires exacting education, extensive expertise, a demanding training period before actual practice… much like that of doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. … a career job that last decades…
and convert it to …
CATEGORY B… nothing more than a low-level service job that requires the most minimal education, almost no expertise, and little if any training period (just gimmicks from godawful books written by “experts” like Doug Lemov) … like fast food, retail sales at a store, janitorial, etc. … not a career job… and with no job protections, or due process for firing… a few years and out you go, to then be replaced by a next round of similarly poorly-compensated, short term workers…
—————————————–
CATEGORY B need only be paid a pittance and can be abused and over-worked with impunity, while CATEGORY A requires considerably more compensation. If the money-motivated privatizers are going to make a decent profit while taking over all or much of what is now public education, the the work force has to be the latter.
I remember talking to a TFA Corps Member at a school site, telling her that doctors, lawyers, and engineers need exacting education, extensive expertise, a demanding training period before actual practice… and so should teachers.
Her reply, “Yeah, but those are different from teaching; those are REAL professions.”
THUD! Sound of my jaw hitting the floor. (That’s part of what they’re taught during their five weeks of training… oy vey!!)
The other agenda is that corporations—including those not engaged in raping and pillaging of public educatin—and rich folk will have their taxes drastically cut as a result of all this. Those corporations will have higher profits, higher price for their stock, and happy stock-holders as a result. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN CHILE… thanks to decades of the dictatorship there, and no democratic process to stop privatization.
That’s why the so-called “corporate reform” privatizers are spending hundreds of millions of dollars vilifying the current teachers and their unions—documentaries, movies, op-eds, foundations, etc. Those unions are getting in their way of their rampage towards profits. The privatizers desperately need to destroy the public’s faith and confidence in teachers, and pass so-called “right-to-work” laws that will destroy unions. They want to do to education what they did to the housing industry, and to Wall Street… education is the next realm to conquer, rape, and pillage. These are the same folks.
However, you’ll notice that in the schools that these well-heeled folks send their own kids, you have teachers with multiple degrees, decades of experience… schools that include full-time dedicated libraries / librarians, arts teachers/ program, music teachers / programs..
Unlike the McSchools they want for the kids of the middle and working classes, these schools have small class sizes, and no (or very little) time spent in a cubicle with on-line or digital teachers. 100% (or close to it) of their kids’ instructional time is spend with live teachers of CATEGORY A above, and because of the small class sizes—12-to-1, 10-to-1, that attention is often 1-on-1… again, totally unlike the McSchools they want for everyone else’s kids… those of the middle and lower-income communities.
LikeLike
I agree that the plantiffs have no evidence to link any relationship between tenure and student performance. What you can link is poverty and performance. Who do you sue for being poor?
LikeLike
K-12 public school teachers don’ t have academic freedom, and they don’t have “tenure.” As I have said a billion times previously, all teachers have are the same civil service protections as other public employees because a government job is seen as a property right, and that right cannot be deprived by the government without due process. To deny teachers that right is singling them out while favoring other public employees their right to “due process.”
LikeLike
So – it’s a stunt. A clever way to put in the public’s face that teachers are anti-student. Nauseating.
LikeLike
There’s one problem with the sham CA “tenure” case: the billionaires supporting this case have already won! Major media outlets across the country are broadcasting the privatizers talking points:
=> Teachers have “tenure” (as one of your commenters noted this is a misnomer)
=> Tenure protects incompetent teachers
=> Unions shield incompetent tenured teachers from dismissals
=> It costs in excess of $400,000-to-dismiss-a-tenured-teacher, a figure that is accepted as gospel without anyone asking how that figure was derived
=> Seniority pushes out less experienced teachers who are more enthusiastic and knowledgeable
=> All urban schools are manned by inexperienced teachers who are marginally competent and incompetent tenured teachers that no one else will take (I know this contradicts the previous bullet… but who ever thought that “messaging” was about logic)
So who’s going to underwrite a sham legal case that will put accurate talking points forward?
LikeLike
I am not a lawyer or resident of California, but It may be a mistake to think teachers in public schools have academic freedom, or that unions can protect teachers from false accusations.
James Popham, a critic of current policies, and Margaret DeSander, a lawyer, have recently reminded educators that legal protections for teachers are limited, especially if the policies are uniformly applied to all teachers.
In a fairly recent case one federal judge characterized the work of teachers as little more than “hired speech.” Teachers are thus required to follow the rules made by school boards on all sorts of matters. Principals may be under similar constraints. See Popham, W. J. & DeSander, M. K. (2013, September 18). Unfairly fired teachers deserve court protection. Education Week, 33(4), 26-27. and Evans-Marshall v. Board of Education of Tipp City Exempted Village School District, No. 09-3775 (6th Cir. Oct. 21, 2010).
LikeLike
This may also be a tactic to bleed out the unions financially before an election year. Lawyers and suits are expensive.
LikeLike
Smeone please check with the California ACLU–because at one point they were supporting the anti-tenure folks on some idiotic free speech argument. ??????? Or maybe it was seniority?
For more information see website: http://www.deborahmeier.com
LikeLike
You are right, Deb. in an earlier phase of the lawsuit, the ACLU decided that due process should be jettisoned for teachers.
LikeLike