When the California Supreme Court denies a petition for review, the Court does not thereby rule on the merits of any of the legal issues involved. It takes the vote 4 of the 7 members of the state Supreme Court to review any of the issues decided by a lower "Court of Appeal." in this case, the Supreme Court did not "uphold" the lower court decision. It declined to take up the issues at all.

@No decision at all - fm Sylvan Park, That is not how I usually think about how the CA appellate court process works in setting "case law." When the CA Supreme Court (or the US Supreme Ct.) lets an appellate decision stand, by not taking it up for change, the justices are basically saying - the Appeals process got it essentially right.

For instance (another education case) Borikas v Alameda USD was not taken up for appeal, by the CA Supreme Ct. The Appellate Ct. effectively rewrote the Alameda USD special tax of 2008, that the voters passed by > 2/3. (a "parcel tax" that was not "uniformly applied"). However, when the 2011 Alameda USD parcel tax (uniform 32 cents per square foot of building) was legally challenged, that per-sq-ft tax was effectively upheld when the Appellate Ct refused to take it up on appeal. Same process as Vergara - only this time the CA Second Appellate Ct. did not even "publish" the decision, and the legal challengers did not even appeal to the CA Supreme Ct.

I am sorry, that Vergara was not upheld. I do not think my old Xerox PARC/SDL spinoff buddy, Dr. Dave Welch, wasted his money.

{Voice editor Batti - my lance is still quite functional, and it is not lowered)

SN happens to be a Trustee of the MVWSD, but these are just his own opinions

@Steve Nelson. There is a saying: you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Petitions for review in the CA Supreme Court (and, by the way, in the US Supreme Court) identify issues, are most often unopposed and very rarely granted (one in more than 200). Both courts have stated that they could not and do not rule on the merits of any of the issues presented unless they grant review and receive further briefing and argument from all parties.

of course teachers are against their job security being linked to competence.

Your comments are irrelevant. By not hearing the case, the appeals court decision stands. If the supreme court had heard the case and affirmed it, what happens? The court decision stands.

You do understand there is no practical difference? No! Oh well...

The practical difference is that in declining to review the CA Supreme Court has not decided any of the legal issues raised and has established no legal precedent for lower courts to follow. Whether the Court of Appeal's decision and reasoning is a legal precedent binding on courts below it (the Superior Court level) depends upon whether its decision was "certified for publication." The article does not say.

Looking elsewhere, I see that the Court of Appeal in Los Angeles did certify its decision/opinion for publication and it is binding on trial courts across the state - but not on other Courts of Appeal). So new cases can be filed on the same grounds but the parties bringing cases will lose at the first level (if filed there) and then need to convince another Court of Appeal (or the CA Supreme Court) to rule differently.

And before you imagine that the denial of the petition for review reveals how the CA Supreme Court would vote on the merits of the issues raised in this particular high-profile case, consider what happened in a 2014 case named Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Associtation v. Padilla. In August of 2014, the CA Supreme Court voted, with one dissent, to remove from the CA ballot an advisory measure concerning whether the State Legislature should support a federal constitutional amendment to essentially moot or "overturn" the US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United. The CA Supreme Court had received only preliminary briefing. In January of this year, the CA Supreme Court took a more careful look at the issue and voted 6-1 that such advisory measures are authorized by the California Constitution. The advisory measure is now on the November 2016 ballot.