<p><a href=“http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/local/california-teacher-tenure-law-unconstitutional/ngH4s/”>http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/local/california-teacher-tenure-law-unconstitutional/ngH4s/</a></p>
<p>A preview of the case is pretty funny to read now. </p>
<p><a href=“Vergara v. California: The most dangerous lawsuit you probably haven't heard of”>Vergara v. California: The most dangerous lawsuit you probably haven't heard of;
<p>I never understood tenure for K-12.</p>
<p>I thought the concept behind tenure was that if freed a college professor from pursuing and teaching topics that could be deemed controversial. It is in the best interest of academic freedom and integrity to make sure that controversial research and teaching could be pursued.</p>
<p>K-12 education is mainly around a State curriculum and the teachers generally aren’t pursuing independent research. </p>
<p>Basically a job for life guarantee. </p>
<p>I was really surprised by this ruling and that it happened in California. The legal idea that tenure results in poor performers being dumped into poor schools which disproportionately hurts the poor is very interesting.</p>
<p>Also seems to have support in DC which is also very surprising:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I haven’t read anything of the articles yet, but I am certain that the poor performers in high schools do not get to teach the advanced classes or gifted students (formerly known as track 1). So the idea that the lousy teachers end up with the students with the least voice fits quite nicely, I think. </p>
<p>Tenure, admittedly among other things, keeps districts from firing teachers with experience just because they make more money than the newly hired. So next let’s reward the principals, who hire, fire and rate teachers, for keeping costs down in their buildings; then we’ll find out what happens if only private schools are willing to hire teachers with experience. Doesn’t quite sound like the road to equality to me, but hey, I’m the bad guy - I teach.</p>
<p>I am not a fan of either civil service or tenure. I just happen to think they are better systems than nepotism or partisan politics which will be the end result</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is the trite argument that is almost always put forward by the people determined to maintain the status quo. While there is some need to protect older teachers that are indeed costing more than new hires, the protection could take plenty of different forms, including realistic evaluations that are mostly based on performance in the classroom. In theory, experienced and well-educated teachers SHOULD perform much better than the younger ones. And there should not be much of an issue. </p>
<p>However, that is NOT what the unions want as their system of indentured servitude is based on rewarding teachers based solely on tenure and base their compensation on the same seniority. One step in the right direction would be to abandon the payscale that is mostly based on seniority with little value placed on presence, performance, and more importantly on the education in the subject taught. </p>
<p>In the end, dropping tenure and reduce the bargaining power of the unions is the sole solution to bringing our public system of education out its current abysmal state. Not until the underbrush of mediocrity will be cleared will we able to expect positive changes. It will only happen after retiring a few more generations that have been attracted to the profession for its vast benefits and low expectation placed on education and performance. </p>
<p>We should choose helping our kids, improving the terrible results of the school and the country’s long term future over a system that protects under performers because of a fear that a top performer may be fired because they cost too much. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Presumably this would be solved if there was a voucher system, as parents would prefer experienced teachers with a good track record over new teachers. </p>
<p>OMG, I can’t believe this happened; it is so amazing that something about government might actually be changed. Too bad it was just a Superior Court decision.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That really is a silly argument.
If they determine that there a better use of how the money we entrust them with, they should follow up with that and we their hands shouldn’t be tied.
If the districts don’t care about performance and fire high performers/high pay for lower performers/lower pay people and spend that money on gold-plated door knobs then that needs to be dealt with by firing the administrators.</p>
<p>Besides, do you want to ride in a plane designed by a bad engineer who was tenured and couldn’t be fired? Or go to a tenured poor performing heart surgeon? Or go to other places where performance doesn’t related to employability…like a VA hospital? Oh wait…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let me know where those vast benefits are, and check some of the threads on this forum to evaluate whether there are low expectations of teachers.
And whether it’s “silly” and “trite” or not, tenure does keep teachers, some of whom might actually be good, in schools. Not sure how getting rid of it will create a rush of better teachers to lower-performing schools where they will be judged on the performance of the students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The same way they’re fired for ignoring bad teaching? Most teachers have a very low tolerance for their poor peers, but some administrators would rather transfer them around than do their job of documenting and terminating them. Like it or not, there are not only bad teachers, but bad administrators (and bad engineers and bad surgeons). I think it’s silly to believe eliminating tenure will eliminate bad teachers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, exactly! And I’d have no incentive to stay in the public school system. Who wouldn’t want a system where the people with the most money get the best services?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From the article, it can cost from $250k-$400k to not get rid of that bad teacher and take multiple years. I have no idea how many school districts have the budget to do that once much less multiple times much less deal with poor vs. horrible performers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If people aren’t part of the solution (getting rid of poor performers), they are part of the problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you serious? That is a strawman.
No one said that getting rid of tenure will get rid of bad teachers by itself.</p>
<p>Eliminating tenure gives an administrator a valuable tool in getting rid of bad teachers.
Some administrators will use that tool, others will not. But at least those who want to, don’t have to spend $400k and several years to do it…and by lowering the bar, they can get rid of not just the horrible performers but also the poor performers.</p>
<p>And those who don’t get rid of poor performers can no longer hid behind the excuse of “but…but…tenure” which will increase pressure on the administrators to manage the school’s performance better.</p>
<p>The same administrators who do a lousy job of evaluating and documenting poor performance WITH tenure laws in place…will continue to do a lousy job of evaluating and documenting poor performance with out tenure laws in place. </p>
<p>There are administrators out there who are not doing their jobs in supervision, evaluation, and the like. Shame on them. I’m not excusing teachers who don’t do their jobs…shame on them too. But really, in any other profession…tenure or not…the supervisor has a responsibility to be sure his staff is doing their job. </p>
<p>Tenure does not prevent teachers from being dismissed. It does guarantee due process. If administration has done their jobs, dismissal is VERY possible, and does happen.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And if the administrators weren’t protected from firing for poor performance, we wouldn’t have this issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, fish rot from the head.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Technically correct.
Not practically correct.</p>
<p>There is a huge cost to what should be an easy firing.</p>
<p>It is possible to reform tenure without eliminating it. </p>
<p>But by all means, let’s cut teacher benefits, eliminate job security, impose more and more requirements on them, and talk about how lazy they are. That will obviously get the best and brightest to go into K-12 teaching, because why would you possibly go into business to have a chance at making hundreds of thousands of dollars and get treated like a respected professional when the merit pay system meant that as a teacher you might earn a princely 80K by age 40 rather than age 50?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is also possible to reform tenure by eliminating it.<br>
For K-12 it has nothing to do with the original intent which was to protect academic freedom.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Blah, blah, blah.
The reason people want to get rid of tenure is so that they can more easily get rid of those teachers who are not just not worth the money, but harmful to the education system. That will reduce the burden on the good teachers and administrators since they aren’t dealing with rework and fixing the problems caused by others.</p>
<p>Cutting teachers benefits? No. Some teachers clearly deserve more money and more benefits. But which ones? The ones who are really good or the ones who are Level J-9 with 11 years of seniority in a R-14 job classification?</p>
<p>Eliminate job security? Sure. For people who aren’t performing, they don’t deserve job security - just like every other job in the country (except of course a government job). This is 2014, not 1950.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh please. Don’t be a victim.
If prospective teachers want to go into business and earn hundreds of thousands of dollars and be treated like a respected professional, there is nothing stopping them.<br>
No one is requiring them to be a teacher and earn less. No one.</p>
<p>Should a teacher have due process prior to being terminated or could an administrator just walk in and tell them to go home?</p>
<p>Your lack of respect for opinions other than your own make conversation difficult. But perhaps that is the goal. Anyway, this suit bankrolled by billionaires was never about improving teaching. It is about dismantling a profession in order to reap money unhindered. </p>
<p>I agree with fluffy that no one is required to be a teacher. Increasingly, it is the choice of last resort — now that’s a great result of “reform”. Teaching as a choice of major has dropped more than 20% in the past 10 years. And now, instead of job security, there is neportism and politicians and edubusiness millionaires directing staffing. That has worked so very well in all other professions, I’m sure it will go just as perfectly in a field we once held as important. There’s so much wrong with this verdict that I can’t believe people are thrilled over it. A teacher featured on Huffington says it better: ( I think this allowed? not my personal blog?)</p>
<p><a href=“http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com”>http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com</a></p>