A California appeals court overturned a lower court ruling that abolished security of tenure and other protections for the state's public school teachers. In its decision, the appellate court said that the provisions on job protection for teachers do not violate students from poor and minority sectors of their right to quality education.
The court's ruling overturns the 2014 decision in Vergara v. California which declared that job protection statues for teachers opened up a culture of inequality and deprived students of their right to education by keeping ineffective teachers in office.
In that case, the plaintiffs argued that due to tenure rules, districts expend thousands of dollars to remove teachers that perform poorly. As a result, there tend to be more ineffective teachers in schools where there are high concentrations of minority and low-income students.
While the California appeals court agreed that "deplorable staffing decisions" have had negative effects on poor and minority children in the state's public schools, the court argued that such was the fault of the school and not an undesirable effect of the law.
According to Los Angeles Times, the evidence on trial showed that staffing decisions are solely in the school administrators' discretion. It is guided by "teacher preference, district policies and collective bargaining agreements" and the law does not in any way interfere with these decisions.
"The court's job is merely to determine whether the statutes are constitutional, not if they are 'a good idea,'" the court said in its decision, as quoted by The Washington Post. "The evidence did not show that the challenged statutes inevitably cause this impact."
If the Vergara ruling were upheld, teachers in unionized school would not be able to enjoy security of tenure and seniority rights.
Katharine Strunk, an association professor of education at the University of Southern California, argued that although the court's ruling is considered a victory to educators, a national debate has commenced regarding the topic.
"The judges are saying things are not right in California, that there are drawbacks to the current system, but this is not something for the courts to decide," Strunk told The New York Times. "I don't think anyone believes that these laws are the best we can do."
The plaintiffs, a group of nine students, vowed to make an appeal to the Supreme Court.
