SB 1285

SB 1285 (Steinberg) was amended again on August 18, 2010 This is the bill that addresses teacher layoffs in response to the Reed v. Los Angeles USD case. That case barred the district from layoff of teachers in three middle schools on the grounds that the disproportionate impact on staff at those schools was denying the students their constitutional rights of equal protection to an education. See previous article on the Reed case and this bill. The bill was passed by the Assembly Appropriations Committee and referred to the Assembly Rules Committee.

In its previous iteration the bill contained requirements regarding schools in deciles one through three, and barred districts from laying off teachers at those schools in numbers that were disproportionate to the overall percentages of layoffs. Those provisions of the bill have now, thankfully, been deleted, and the only change in the law embodied in SB 1285 is Education Code section 44955(d) Ed Code 44955 The bill renumbers the existing subsections of 44955(d). The current 44955(d) (1) and (2) become 44955(1) (A) and (B) and there is a new subsection (2). 44955(1) (B), which allows districts to deviate from seniority for purposes of equal protection, adds “pupils and certificated staff” to the constitutional equal protection language. New subparagraph (2) of 44955 (d) contains language that the Legislature intends to specify criteria and conditions for “identifying schools analogous to the schools identified in Reed v. LAUSD . . .” It also includes legislative intent language “to require” districts with schools that meet those criteria and conditions ensure the proportion of layoffs of teachers is no greater than the district average.

There is an excellent bill analysis by an Assembly staff person that addresses the competing interests in this layoff dilemma. Interestingly, opponents to this bill, according to the analysis, argue that current law already allows districts to skip employees at low performing schools, citing the case of Bledsoe v. Biggs. Also according to the analysis, school districts who weighed in on this bill in response to those arguments cite the risks and costs of litigation and to withstand a legal challenge of deviating from seniority. School districts are right – when a district does deviate from seniority, attorneys hired by the unions often fight tooth and nail and threaten litigation to challenge that determination. Districts need clear authority to avoid that risk.

My two cents’ worth: Depending on what criteria the Legislature develops, and when it develops it, this version of the bill is moving in the direction that makes it worth supporting. It gives districts clear language of Legislative intent that districts may protect staffs at low performing schools from the disproportionate impact a layoff can produce. As pointed out in the Assembly analysis of August 3rd, the best teaching force for low-performing schools is not necessarily the more experienced teachers in the district, if they do not want to be at those schools. Districts often recruit teachers specifically who have the skills, talents and desire to work with high risk student populations, and then provide those teachers with additional training, support and opportunities to gel as a team. I’ve worked with a district in a layoff situation that had recently hired excellent newer teachers with relevant prior-life experiences who the district sought to protect in a layoff situation, as those teachers had made significant gains with students that had not been successful in the regular programs. Teachers often devote countless hours together to develop school-wide cohesive programs in order to ensure that children are taught in a nurturing and coordinated system. Ideally, districts should be able to insulate those staffs to see that those efforts pay off in long-term improved student performance. That is not to say the same efforts are not happening at other schools, but it is clear that it takes some very special individuals with a strong desire to work in high poverty schools in which there are so many challenges. This bill will assist districts to preserve those staffs. Districts, on the other hand, need to make that preservation a priority and set up the facts that will demonstrate reasons why those teaching staffs should be protected. In this era, protections from layoff can also aide districts in recruiting teachers to fill those hard to staff positions.

By Diana D. Halpenny