MARTINEZ — Students’ performance on standardized test scores aren’t needed to evaluate teacher effectiveness, nor should they be required on teachers’ annual performance reviews, a judge ruled on Monday, despite claims by an educational nonprofit that not doing so violates the law.
Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Barry Goode ruled in favor of 13 school districts, including Antioch, Pittsburg, San Ramon Valley and Fremont Union High, in Jane Doe v. Antioch Unified School District et al., upholding their right to exclude the test scores on teacher’s end-of-the-year job reviews.
“The Legislature endorses many uses of those tests, including evaluating pupils, entire schools and local educational agencies,” Goode wrote in his ruling. “But it does not say the results should be used to evaluate individual teachers.”
He also notes that “if a legislature chooses to require that student test scores be used in the evaluation of teachers, then it may legislate that result clearly.
The lawsuit, filed by Students Matter, an educational nonprofit founded by Silicon Valley entrepreneur Dave Welch, could have had a big impact statewide, because it maintained that these districts and many others have been violating the Stull Act by excluding the test scores to evaluate teacher job performance. The 1970s law sets state standards for teacher evaluations and was amended in the 1990s to require that teachers be assessed in part by their students’ performance on state standardized tests. Other factors that must be considered are educators’ teaching methods, instructional curriculum and learning environment.
The Stull Act does not “clearly and unambiguously” address this issue, Goode said in his ruling. But due to a number of historical reasons, including the fact that teachers’ unions endorsed the Stull Act, he believes that the law was not intended to challenge current state teacher evaluation protocols which don’t use the tests to evaluate individual teachers.
Joshua S. Lipshutz, lead counsel for Students Matter, called it “a flawed ruling” and said the nonprofit is “considering a possible appeal.”
“Obviously we think the court got it wrong.., ” he said. “If you’re not actually looking at whether students are actually learning, then you are not evaluating whether a teacher can teach. What the districts say they do is just look at the teachers’ teaching techniques but if those techniques don’t actually cause students to learn, then the teacher should not be rated satisfactory.”
The attorney representing the Antioch, Pittsburg, San Ramon Valley and Fremont Union school districts could not be reached, and the California Teachers Union did not comment. However, Roy Combs, an Oakland-based attorney who represented the Upland and Victor Elementary school districts, said he was pleased with the ruling.
“The decision also expressly recognizes the discretion local school districts have in the teacher evaluation process and the practical application of the evaluation statutes in the real world…,” he said. “We are very pleased with the result.”
The other districts named in the suit include Chaffey Joint Union High, Chino Valley, El Monte City, Fairfield-Suisun, Inglewood, Ontario-Montclair and Saddleback Valley.
The collective bargaining agreements for the districts named in the lawsuit have or previously had explicit prohibitions against using state test scores to evaluate teachers’ performance. Students Matter said the districts collectively serve 250,000 students and are among the state’s largest to exclude state test scores from teacher evaluations.
The districts argued in a daylong hearing in July that state test scores are used in the evaluating teachers all year, even though they are not included in the end of the year job performance reviews.
On Monday, Goode ruled that school districts have the discretion to use scores from state tests, such as Smarter Balanced tests, in teachers’ evaluations as they deem appropriate.
Students Matters founder Dave Welch said the judge’s decision makes student learning secondary to teachers’ job protections. The nonprofit also challenged teacher tenure protections in Vergara v. California, which it won, until it was overturned on appeal.
“Students’ educational rights and the opportunity to learn are non-negotiable, and should never be on the bargaining table,” he said.
The judgment underscores the need for the Governor to sign Assembly Bill 2826, Lipshutz said. The bill, introduced by State Assemblymember Shirley Weber in February, is aimed at focusing teacher evaluations on multiple measures of academic growth and performance, including state test scores. The state Legislature passed the bill in August 2016, and it’s currently awaiting the Governor’s signature, the nonprofit said.
