Welch's and Olson's lawsuit claims, "The key determinant of educational effectiveness is teacher quality." In fact, up to 90% of the factors that determine student performance are beyond the control of teachers. I wonder whether they believe that opposing lawyers will let such a false statement go unchallenged.
The NCTQ, for instance, acknowledges that none of California's requirements for firing teachers appears "overly onerous." But, "principals asserted that they have only enough time to dismiss one or two teachers a year." And, Vergara would strike down another law because a poll of principals says that they believe it takes three years (not the current two) to identify whether a teacher is effective. So, Welch's and Olson's constitutional argument is that they believe that due process and seniority should be struck down, and those beliefs are based on a poll of administrators' beliefs.
Vergara asks the court to prohibit the enforcement of any policy that is "substantially similar to the framework" which is now the law of California. So, what would that mean for California teachers? Welch and Olson draw upon the "research" of organizations that want to micromanage schools to the point of mandating performance pay and the minimum amount of hours that teachers work at school One would even prohibit substitute-calling systems for teachers to report absences! Welch and Olson would explicitly seek a permanent injunction prohibiting teachers from having more due process rights than they believe is necessary.
Welch and Olson want to replace democratically crafted laws with their beliefs on "teacher effectiveness" i.e. test scores. What would that mean? One of their featured sources, the NCTQ, suggests what many "reformers" really believe, "Economists recommend that districts should routinely dismiss at least the bottom-performing 25 percent of teachers eligible for tenure in order to build a high-quality teaching corps that is capable of making significant gains in student achievement."