|
|
Court Rules That Veteran Teachers Who Refuse To Get EL Certification Can Be Terminated Longtime tenured teachers who refuse to get training that certifies them for working with students who are English Learners can be terminated, according to a closely watched decision announced on Sept. 29 by the California Third District Court of Appeals. The case – which is thought to have implications for other school districts – involved a longtime high school music teacher in the Ripon Unified School District in San Joaquin County. The origins of the case go back seven years, when the California Department of Education (CDE) found the Ripon district to be out of compliance with a state requirement that students with designated English language identification needs be place in classrooms with a teacher who has a certification to work with English Learners. The Ripon district then reached an agreement with the teachers’ union that all certificated staff would have until the end of 2005 to obtain the certification, or be terminated. The district offered a $400 stipend to assist with the costs of obtaining the certification through the San Joaquin County Office of Education. Ripon High School music teacher Theresa Messick did not complete all of the requirements for the certification. When the district moved to terminate Messick, an Administrative Law Judge initially ruled in Messick’s favor. The district appealed that decision at the Superior Court level, and won, allowing the district to proceed with a termination hearing. Messick then appealed that ruling to the Third District Court of Appeal. Messick’s attorney (Thomas Driscoll, of Driscoll and Associates) argued that the district’s requirement to obtain English Language (EL) certification violated statutes governing the efficacy of her life credential, the ability of the school district to mandate additional training for tenured teachers, the permissible scope of negotiations between the district and the union. The appellate court disagreed with this argument, and also rejected Messick’s argument that the district’s requirement violated state education code on decreasing the annual salary of a teacher for failure to meet a requirement by the district that additional coursework or certification be completed. The court concluded that the code in question “applies only to salaries, not to termination.” Driscoll also argued that no English Learner ever tried to sign up for one of Messick’s classes, effectively rendering the requirement for EL certification pointless in her case. But the court was not swayed by that argument. Attorney Diana Halpenny, representing the California School Boards Association (CSBA), said that since 2003 the EL training has been required for new teachers, but also argued that longtime teachers who were credentialed in past decades who do not have the EL training could only be terminated for serious misconduct or unfitness for service. The Ripon district’s case was argued by attorneys Chesley D. Quaide and Marleen L. Sacks of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo. Superintendent Louise Nan of the Ripon district told EdBrief “This has been a long and difficult journey for the Ripon Unified School District. It began in 2002 when the district was found out of compliance with California state law on English Learner services. The district and the association came to mutual agreement through the collective bargaining process to assure that all teachers would obtain the necessary authorization to teach ELL students. Every teacher in RUSD completed the necessary training to obtain the needed certification except one. This decision by the California Court of Appeals upholds the right of school districts to make reasonable work rules in order to comply with the law and to negotiate processes for implementation with the bargaining units. We believe that justice has been served.” Attorney Dulcinea Grantham of Lozano Smith law firm followed the case closely, and told EdBrief that she sees the appellate court decision in this context: “The Ripon Unified School District v. Commission on Professional Competence case is a very important case for California school districts because it clarifies that school districts may take disciplinary action against employees who fail to comply with a district requirement to obtain English Language (“EL”) certification. This case will likely prove extremely useful for school districts with large English Learner populations that are encountering teachers unwilling to attain EL certification by confirming that school districts have the authority to pursue disciplinary action against such employees. This case further recognizes that school districts have an obligation to provide educational services to English Learners and must be able to impose requirements for employees to ensure that such services can be provided.” Messick is reportedly considering an appeal to the California Supreme Court. The court opinion can be read at the link below: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C058815.PDF Editor's Note: Jeff Hudson is the editor of EdBrief and an award-winning education reporter and writer in print, radio and television media. |
|
