Education Law Module 3 Paper: California Education Code

Education Law
Student:
Professor:
Course title:
Date:
Education Law
Step One
California statute and regulation: California Education Code. In particular, Education Code Section 44930-44988 was utilized extensively.
Case on teacher removal, termination and non contract renewal
Federal Court of Appeals Case: Takahashi v. Board of Education, F008684 (1988)
Step Two
The state law of California does not allow the school district to suspend or remove Ms. Anderson from the classroom basing upon the facts in problems 2 and 3. This is because Ms. Anderson’s conduct or behaviour does not merit her suspension or removal as per California law. According to Section 44932(b) of the Education Code, California law clearly stipulates that a school district’s governing body can suspend a permanent certificated worker for a certain time period only on grounds of unprofessional conduct. Even though the school cannot suspend or remove Ms. Anderson from the classroom basing upon the facts specified in problems 3 and 2, the school actually has some options to effectively address the concerns they have with regard to this teacher. The school board can give Ms. Anderson a written notification of her incompetency which specifies the nature of the incompetency including specific instances of the behaviour. The school board can also provide Ms. Anderson with an opportunity of correcting her faults so that her behaviour is no longer considered incompetent or worthy of her being suspended or dismissed. This is stipulated in the Education Code section 44938 of California state law.
The school board shall recommend the areas in which the teacher needs to improve in her performance and strive to help the employee in improving her performance. Section 44664 of the Education Code in California’s state statutes provide that if a teacher is not carrying out his or her duties satisfactorily in accordance with the standards specified by the governing board, then the teacher would be notified of such fact in writing by the employing authority. The written notice will explain the poor performance of the employee. Thereafter, the employing authority, which in this case is the school board, would discuss with the teacher and make recommendations regarding specific areas of improvement in the performance of the teacher and make an effort to assist the teacher in her performance improvement efforts.
Step Three
California state law allows the school district to terminate or dismiss Ms. Anderson basing upon the facts in problems 2 and 3 even though she is under contract. This is because her actions and behaviours clearly merit dismissal in accordance with the laws of California State. Education Code section 44932(a) explicitly enumerates the causes for teacher dismissal in the state of California. The main reasons for termination are as follows: unsatisfactory performance; immoral conduct such as egregious misconduct; mental or physical condition which unfits the teacher to associate with children or teach them; evident unfitness for service; dishonesty; drug abuse and alcoholism which makes the teacher not fit to teach; conviction or felony; or commissioning or supporting the commissioning of acts of criminal syndicalism.
Unsatisfactory performance is defined as a teacher failing to carry out his or her job responsibilities to a standard expected by the school district. It also means underperformance or poor performance. Unsatisfactory performance could actually have a negative effect on the teachers in the school district whose performance is satisfactory and may also impact on the school in general. Ms. Anderson can be rightfully dismissed on the basis of unsatisfactory performance because of a number of reasons. Firstly, on the state-wide assessment test, the test scores for Ms. Anderson’s class have been novice or low. Secondly, she is not strict enough with some students in the classroom who cause problems distracting other learners.
The process which the school district has to follow is stipulated under Education Code section 44930. The process of dismissing a teacher commences by serving the employee with a Notice of Intent to Dismiss. In general, this notice can be filed between 15th May and 15th September of any school year. The teacher who is being dismissed will have a total of thirty days – which is roughly 1 month – from the date of service in which to ask for a hearing before a Commission on Professional Competence. In the case of Takahashi v. Board of Education (Cal. 1988), which is a teacher dismissal and termination case, Mitsue Takahashi, the plaintiff appealed for a judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s causes of action against Education Board of Livingstone Union School District in California which was the defendant. Mitsue Takahashi was given a document with the title Notice of Intent to Dismiss together with a description of charges which indicated that she would be dismissed because of her incompetency. In the case illustrated in Problems 2 and 3, if Ms. Anderson asks for a hearing, she would be served with an Accusation as per Government Code section 11505 or the board of the school district might choose to rescind its actions as per Education Code section 44943. The Commission on Professional Competence will carry out the evidentiary hearing.
By law, the hearing commences within a period of sixty days of the date of Ms. Anderson’s hearing request, although the hearings are habitually continued awaiting the conclusion of pre-trial proceedings. It is notable that the hearing would be carried out according to the rules stipulated under Administrative Procedures Act in Government Code section 11500. The Commission on Professional Competence’s decision is considered the governing body’s final decision, but either party could appeal to the Superior Court. The rights that Ms. Anderson has include the right to be given a written notice of the cause of the unsatisfactory performance, and the right to be granted a fair and full hearing. Moreover, she is entit...