Court Upholds School District's Right to Require Certification and to Terminate Employee for Failure to Comply
October 2009
The California Court of Appeal has held that a school district may lawfully require that all certificated teachers become certified to teach English learners and that a teacher's persistent refusal to comply with the requirement is a lawful ground for termination. (Gov. Bd. of the Ripon Unified Sch. Dist. v. Comm. on Professional Conduct (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 2009) --- Cal.Rptr.3d ---, 2009 WL 3088417.)
In May 2002, the State Department of Education determined the Ripon Unified School District (“District”) was out of compliance with state law because the District had assigned English language learners (“ELL students”) to classes taught by teachers who lacked ELL certification. The District required all of its teachers to become certified to teach ELL students in order to comply with state laws requiring full access to the curriculum for all ELL students, including properly certified teachers.[1] Failure to comply with that directive would result in termination. In addition, the District negotiated an agreement with the District’s teachers association regarding the ELL certification requirement which provided District payment of the cost of the training and an additional stipend for properly certified teachers.
A music teacher refused to obtain the ELL certification and the District began proceedings to terminate her employment for unprofessional conduct, evident unfitness for services, and persistent violation of or refusal to obey the school laws of the state or reasonable regulations prescribed by the Board of Education or the governing board of the District. The teacher filed a motion to dismiss the District's statement of charges for termination which was granted by the Commission on Professional Competence. The District petitioned for a writ of mandate seeking to overturn the Commission's decision with the Superior Court. The Court granted the District's petition, and the teacher appealed the judgment.
The Court of Appeal cited to Education Code section 35160, which grants school districts all the authority necessary to fulfill its purposes except as expressly limited or preempted by statute. The Court noted that the teacher had the significant burden of showing the District's actions were preempted by law. The Court recognized that courts should give substantial deference to the decisions of local school districts and boards within the scope of their discretion and that courts “should intervene only in clear cases of abuse of discretion.”
The Court pointed out that unless there is a law that prohibits the District's action, Education Code section 35160 clearly authorizes the District to impose the ELL certification requirement on its teachers. The Court recognized the Legislature's directive to prepare for the need to properly educate the increasing population of ELL students with appropriately credentialed teachers. Teachers must have essential skills and knowledge related to ELL development to ensure ELL students have access to a quality education. The Court rejected all of the teacher's arguments, including that the Legislature has not required teachers who received their teaching credential prior to 2003 to obtain the ELL certification. This argument “trivializes” the dilemma faced by the District to provide its ELL students with equal opportunity to all of the District's programs, including fully qualified teachers.
A teacher's persistent refusal to comply with the District's ELL certification requirement is a lawful ground on which to initiate termination proceedings against the teacher. The Court did not agree with the teacher's argument that the District's requirement renders her life credential ineffective because her credential licenses her to teach but does not guarantee her employment or tenure. Nothing in the credentialing statutes prohibits the District from imposing and changing the terms of the teacher's employment.
The Court also rejected the teacher's argument that a statute prohibiting a district from reducing a tenured teacher's salary on account of the teacher's failure to meet additional education requirements applied to this matter. This statute applies only to salaries and provides no indication it was intended to modify or restrict the statutory grounds on which a District may terminate a tenured teacher.
The teacher's final argument that the credential requirement was outside the scope of permissible bargaining between the teachers union and the District, under the Educational Employment Relations Act (“EERA”) was also rejected by the Court. The Court found that the certification requirements were sufficiently related to hours, wages and conditions of employment such that a union and District could chose to either negotiate (voluntarily) or meet and confer on this issue. The Court did not state that this is a mandatory subject of bargaining.
This case removes any question about whether school districts may lawfully require its certificated teachers to comply with ELL certification requirements and may lawfully terminate teacher for refusing to comply with such requirement. The Court's holding does not require a school district to negotiate such a requirement; negotiations or consultation are simply permissible under the EERA.
This F3 NewsFlash is a summary only and not legal advice. We recommend that you consult with legal counsel to determine how this case may apply to your specific facts and circumstances. Information on a free NewsFlash subscription can be found at www.fagenfriedman.com.
[1] A district with ELL students need not be found out of compliance by the State. The legal requirements apply regardless of whether there is an existing enforcement action by the Department of Education.