Six Newark, N.J., parents鈥攚ho are being backed by the Partnership for Educational Justice, the same group that brought lawsuits against teacher tenure laws in New York and Minnesota鈥� for laying off teachers keeps bad veteran teachers in the classroom, thus undermining their children鈥檚 right to a quality education.
The New Jersey suit is the latest in a nationwide effort to use the courts to upend teacher tenure policies that education reformers say too often hurt those who can afford it the least鈥攏amely, poor and nonwhite students. So far, these judicial efforts have largely failed to gain traction. Courts in both and 鈥攈ome to the landmark Vergara case that spawned this wave of legal challenges鈥攈ave ruled that this was an issue best decided by the state legislature, not the judiciary.
What makes the New Jersey case different from previous lawsuits is that it鈥檚 more narrowly tailored to take on just one aspect of teachers鈥� tenure protections: that schools must decide which teachers to lay off during budget cuts based on seniority, not performance.
鈥淓specially as our schools face severe budget cuts, our children deserve the best teachers possible, and the 鈥榣ast in, first out鈥� teacher layoff law stands in the way of this,鈥� and one of the plaintiffs in the suit, said in a press release. 鈥淚t鈥檚 time to stand up to the elected officials who are playing politics with our children鈥檚 futures.鈥�
Wendell Steinhauer鈥攖he president of the New Jersey Education Association, the state鈥檚 teachers union鈥攁rgues that the lawsuit is 鈥減remised on a lie鈥� and .
鈥淗iding behind the specter of layoffs is cowardly,鈥� said Steinhauer in a press release. "[I]f a teacher is not effective, a district should not wait until layoffs to take action. That teacher should be given the opportunity and support needed to show improvement and if there is not improvement, the district should take action under the tenure law to prove that the teacher is not doing his or her job. That doesn鈥檛 require a financial crisis; it just requires conscientious administrators.鈥�
After initially filling a separate suit, , Abbott v. Burke. That motion runs counter to a filing by the administration of Governor Chris Christie that asked the New Jersey Supreme Court to and to let the state Commissioner of Education revoke teacher tenure protections in the 31 low-income 鈥淎bbott鈥� districts. The move was part of a larger Christie agenda to end a court-mandated funding formula that requires the state to send more money to financially-struggling districts in an effort to eliminate funding gaps between the state鈥檚 rich and poor districts. Instead, the Newark parents are asking the court to consider the 鈥渓ast in, first out鈥� policy on its own merit, and argue that its enforcement shouldn鈥檛 be left up to a political appointee.
鈥淭he interests of these Newark families are not represented by either side in the state鈥檚 motion to re-open Abbott v. Burke, and we think it is critical that the court hear from the parents whose children have the most at stake,鈥� Kent Yalowitz, a lawyer representing the parents, said in a statement. 鈥淣ew Jersey鈥檚 quality-blind teacher layoff law violates student鈥檚 constitutional rights, and these families deserve the attention of the court.鈥�