Court Opinion

ID: 9727490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:39:54.608785+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:38.960817
License: Public Domain

KAUFMAN, J.
I respectfully dissent.
I agree that the respondents were not barred from seeking judicial relief by a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. However, I cannot agree that Education Code section 45028 was intended to foreclose a school district from adopting a policy which in effect tells its teachers their years of experience will not be considered of specific value for purposes of increased *332salary beyond a certain point (i.e., four years) unless they make that experience meaningful by also completing certain “training” experience within the same time frame.
As for the majority’s conclusion that the “training” specified by the board is underinclusive or not as relevant to teaching skills as some other experience the author of the opinion thinks more valuable, the majority clearly invade the province of the governing board of the school district. It is their evaluation that is significant, not that of a majority of this court.
For the reasons set forth in part II of the appellant’s reply brief I would reverse both judgments.