The League of Women Voters of California appreciates the opportunity
to share with you the reasons why we OPPOSE Proposition 74 on the November
2005 ballot..
The League believes in the fundamental value to our society of a strong
public education system. We support improvements in public education based
on access, with both equitable and sufficient opportunities for all students
to be successful. We believe that there are fundamental elements that
must be present to create a teaching and learning environment that provides
this access and equitable opportunity for all children. One of those fundamental
elements is fully qualified teachers.
The impact of Proposition 74 is much greater than its surface simplicity
implies. It unnecessarily removes due process protections currently given
to certificated employees and does not accomplish its own stated goals,
as listed in its findings and purpose.
For example, the stated intent of the proposition is to ensure that the
needs of students will be given high priority in the assignment of teachers,
but the measure does nothing to address the current, well-documented inequities
in this area. Rather, the reverse may be true. The negative impact of
Proposition 74 on California's ability to attract and retain qualified
teachers may actually aggravate those inequities.
Proponents, opponents, and researchers all agree that a qualified teacher
in the classroom is a key component to giving students both the access
and the opportunity needed to be successful in school. Reforms, therefore,
should have not only the stated goal but also the real effect
of encouraging the best and the brightest to enter the teaching profession.
We have seen no evidence showing that lengthening the probation period
has any impact on improving teacher quality, while there is evidence
that positive reforms, such as providing mentoring programs, professional
development, and other forms of new teacher support, have proven effective.
In other words, there are more effective ways to "cure the ill."
The League has significant concerns about the measure's impact
on due process rights.
Extending the Probationary Period. Proposition
74 would give school districts five years, instead of the current two,
to dismiss teachers without having to defend their decisions or even offer
reasons.
As noted by the Legislative Analyst, from 1927 to 1982 California had
a three-year probationary period. During that time, probationary employees
typically had at least limited legal rights to challenge dismissal decisions.
In 1983, the probationary period was shortened from three to two years.
In exchange for the shorter amount of time, some legal protections then
given to probationary employees were removed. These policies remain in
effect today.
According to the Office of the General Council of the National Education
Association, California is one of 13 states where probationary/nontenured
teachers enjoy few or no rights in connection with nonrenewal (dismissal)
decisions. Although it not only restores the longer probationary period
but extends it to five years, Proposition 74 does nothing to restore or
establish any legal protections to probationary employees--it simply extends
the time period, making it one of the longest probationary periods for
teachers in the country. Only two other states have a probationary period
of five years--Indiana and Missouri.
Prop 74 applies retroactively. As you know, Proposition
74 establishes the five-year probationary period for certificated employees
whose probationary period began with the 2003-04 fiscal year or later.
Many employees hired in 2003-04 have already completed their two-year
probation and have become permanent employees. If the initiative passes
in November, it would apply retroactively and deprive these employees
of their newly acquired status until they successfully complete five consecutive
years. It would change the terms of the contract under which they were
originally hired.
The question arises: If there are only a few "bad" teachers and most
are "good," why should we punish the "good" teachers by making them work
with no due process protections for an extra three years? Doesn't that
make it harder to attract and retain qualified teachers?
Dismissal Process for Permanent Certificated Employees.
Current law requires school districts to provide employees with written
notice of intent, specifying the reasons for dismissal. If dismissal is
for unsatisfactory performance, the employee must be given 90 days to
improve performance. This initiative gives a school board the discretion
to dismiss an employee on the sole basis of two consecutive unsatisfactory
evaluations and would no longer require it to provide an employee with
90 days to improve performance.
The League believes in state-level development of guidelines for, and
local-level implementation of, a fair, rigorous teacher evaluation system
that includes procedures for removing ineffective teachers. We support
high standards for recruiting, training, certifying, and retraining teachers;
a work environment which is conducive to good teaching; and incentives
for excellence in teaching.
California schools need to attract and retain new teachers, but Proposition
74 creates new problems and will drive good teachers away. It does not
deliver the reform its proponents promise. This kind of experimentation
is inappropriate--the stakes are too high. We urge Californians to reject
Proposition 74.
