School District Has Authority to Impose Requirement That Every Teacher Become Certified To Teach English Learners

In Governing Board of Ripon Unified School District v. Commission on Professional Conduct, (--- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, Cal.App. 3 Dist., September 29, 2009), a California Court of Appeal considered whether a school district could impose a new condition of employment on all of its teachers to become certified to teach English learners. The Court of Appeal held the school district could impose such a requirement.

Facts
Public school teachers in California are required to be specially certified to teach English learner (“EL”) students, if they are assigned any students who are designated as EL students. After the State Department of Education determined that the Ripon Unified School District (“District”) was not in compliance with state law because District had assigned EL students to classes taught by teachers who did not have EL certification, District and the Ripon Unified School District Teachers Association (“Union”) negotiated an agreement to require all District’s certificated staff to “obtain EL certification by December 30, 2005, or else resign or be terminated.”

Theresa Messick (“Messick”) is employed by District as a certificated teacher and is the only music teacher at Ripon High School. Messick, who has a single subject teaching credential in music, refused to obtain EL certification. District instituted termination proceedings against Messick because she would not obtain EL certification. As of the date of the termination proceedings, no EL student had actually attempted to enroll in music. An administrative law judge granted Messick’s motion to dismiss District’s statement of charges finding that District lacked the authority to impose the certification requirement, and that District and the teachers union could not legally negotiate such a requirement. District filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandate in a California superior court. The superior court ruled in favor of District, and ordered the administrative law judge decision be reversed. Messick appealed that decision to the Third District Court of Appeal.

Decision
The Third District Court of Appeal sided with District. It held that, as a general rule, “a school district has all authority necessary to fulfill its purposes except as expressly limited or preempted by statute,” citing the permissive Education Code section 35160. Thus, District has the inherent authority to impose the EL certification requirement unless Messick can demonstrate the requirement is preempted or limited by state statute.

The court rejected Messick’s claim that the EL certification requirement violates provisions of the Education Code. The EL certification requirement does not violate statutes governing teacher credentialing. The credentialing laws of the State of California do not prevent District from requiring Messick to satisfy additional certification requirements in order to continue to be employed by District. The court found that the EL certification requirement does not violate the law which provides that a school district may not reduce a tenured teacher’s salary because of the teacher’s failure to meet additional education requirements imposed by a school district. The salary-reduction rule does not apply in cases involving termination or dismissal.

Pursuant to Education Code section 44932, “District can terminate a tenured employee for, among other reasons, unprofessional conduct, evident unfitness for service, and persistent violation of, or refusal to obey, reasonable regulations prescribed by the District.” The EL certification requirement is valid and does not violate the Education Code provisions cited by Messick. Because the requirement is lawful, District could terminate Messick for her persistent refusal to comply with a valid school-board adopted requirement.

The court also rejected Messick’s argument that the certification requirement was outside the scope of permissible bargaining between District and Union. The court found that the requirement of obtaining EL certification and the financial incentives attached to such requirement is reasonably related to hours, wages, and conditions of employment, which are negotiable subjects for collective bargaining under Government Code § 3543.2, and therefore the requirement was an appropriate subject of negotiation. Even if the requirement was not related to wages, hours, and conditions of employment, District would still have the right to consult with Union regarding the requirement.

Kronick attorney Diana Halpenny wrote the Amicus Curiae brief on behalf of the California School Boards Association Education Legal Alliance. While the court did not specifically refer to the CSBA brief, the initial part of the decision closely tracked the legal arguments raised in the CSBA brief.

What This Means To You
Districts can now adopt a requirement that every teacher obtain EL certification, and can enforce that requirement through the dismissal procedures, if a teacher persistently refuses to comply. In addition, the case has very helpful language about school boards’ inherent authority to adopt regulations that are not in conflict with the Education Code.