<p>
</p>
<p>And in that perfect world, all children and all teachers are above average, no doubt.<br>
I would have no problem eliminating tenure if the quality of teachers could be evaluated independently of the quality of students. As a special education teacher, I am particularly concerned about equating “merit” with test scores. Many factors relating to how my students score on a given standardized test are simply not under my control. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Other industries seem to manage just fine dealing with their staff fairly. </p>
<p>A lot of industries, ;particularly retail, have a track record of just firing those employees who are making more money than new hires. Look around, and you’ll see a distinct lack of older workers out there. Many, many businesses, when purchased, will purge those older workers who are paid more for seniority, extra work they do, the knowledge, simply because it is not, worth that extra money. So, yes, those who have seniority and are being paid for that, are always at risk for being hired and replaced by cheaper help. That is a fact of life.</p>
<p>Sadly, that has happened with my son’s elementary school that had no such protections. As cost saving measured, all of the teachers with seniority were axed. Even though the raises were miserly, there were some long time teachers there who had racked up a living wage by simply being there for a long time. That was not acceptable to the new managment of the school. They were looking for every and any cost saving measure, and it was just to easy to cut the older teachers and replace with new. I’m sure they were very proud of all of the money they saved. I think they’ve ruined a good part of what made this an excellent private school. I can clearly see why unions are necessary. </p>
<p>A lot of industries are not managing just fine dealing with their staff fairly. That is a huge problem .</p>
<p>Who is going to want to be a teacher in CA? No job security, already overcrowded classrooms, lousy pay, Especially for a position that requires an advanced degree. </p>
<p>After this goes in effect I better not hear anyone in CA complaining how crummy their public schools are. You get what you pay for. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, people can’t choose what they pay right now. Maybe if there were vouchers…</p>
<p>Not that I really should be trying to change the discussion here, but I don’t see how you can have this and be successful without having vouchers. It seems the only way this can work is if schools have a clear reason, in terms of education provided, to not let go experienced teachers who soak up more funds, just because they soak up more funds.</p>
<p>“Well, people can’t choose what they pay right now.”</p>
<p>Don’t people in CA vote on their school districts budget? </p>
<p>Maybe if teachers were paid more, some of our best and brightest would go into teaching. Why would anyone want to go into teaching in CA without tenure? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But we currently manage to do that evaluation in order to grant tenure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They are already crummy.
California ranks 30/51 in the county with a C+ score on Education Policy.
It should be much better than it is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. Depending on the job, test scores may be partially relevant or totally irrelevant. For example, someone teaching AP Calc and AP Stats may have as part of their evaluation the number of 3,4,5 on AP exams. That could either be as a part of their base evaluation or part of a bonus.</p>
<p>^ Yes, I know they are already crummy - but they can get even worst. </p>
<p>I’m sure those who are in favor of getting rid of tenure believe this action will improve their schools, no? So, we shouldn’t still hear how crummy they are after tenure is eliminated. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I voted in the presidential election. The president isn’t the guy I voted for. </p>
<p>Though is that how it works in California? I don’t think that’s how it works in Michigan.</p>
<p>The individual family doesn’t choose for themselves. The idea is that we don’t need a market, because we’ll put down enough rules that make K-12 education work “well enough” without a market. If you start repealing the rules, now you need a market to ensure things are done sensibly.</p>
<p>The superintendent of the LA Unified School District testified for the plaintiffs in this case. He has an editorial in today’s L. A. Times explaining the difficulties tenure presents in order to get rid of bad teachers. </p>
<p>In California, teachers can get tenure after just 18 months. Once tenure is obtained no matter how bad a teacher is it takes years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to get rid of them. In wealthier areas, if parents complain loudly and strongly to the administration, the teacher may be transferred to another school. Typically this school is in a poor neighborhood where the parents don’t complain as much. That was the basis for the equal protection basis of the legal argument. The bad teachers roll downhill. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As Einstein never said: “The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result”.</p>
<p>30/51 for California is awful.
We are failing in not helping our students which is a disservice to them and bad for the country’s future.</p>
<p>I wonder if any of those people on this thread opposing this decision have put their kids through CA public schools. It is my understanding that CA may be uniquely extreme in its protections of bad teachers; like TatinG wrote, it is virtually impossible to get rid of a bad teacher here, unless s/he commits a crime. I don’t know why anyone would want to protect a process like that.</p>
<p>As for firing older teachers simply because they make more, this can happen in any profession. Why should it be different for teachers?</p>
<p>And no, in CA, we do not vote on our school district’s budget (at least not where I live in CA).</p>
<p>@emilybee: An advanced degree is not required to teach K-12 in California. An undergrad degree w/ teaching credential (of dubious nature, but that’s another discussion), and just 18 months of experience, and a California teacher is tenured for life.</p>
<p>Even the left wing LA Times editorial board applauded the decision. </p>
<p>This opens another touch subject: teacher evaluations? What makes a good teacher? When should a teacher be fired? I see both sides of the issue. I do know that I have many friends that teach in inner city schools, they cant get parents send school supplies, they wont come to parent teacher conferences, they dont supply a valid number to contact, and the list goes on… Is it fair to rate a teacher poorly and potentially fire him/her, with no protections, if she is dealing with that population?</p>
<p>A teacher should be fired when they don’t teach. When a considerable number of days is spent showing movies iin class, for example, while the teacher plays World of Warcraft on computer. (Yes, this happens).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course not.<br>
They are taking a bad situation and doing all they can to make it better.
Rating: “Above and Beyond expectations” in my book.
Bravo to them.
Those are exactly the people who should get more support, more raises, etc.</p>
<p>If a department manager or a school administrator doesn’t value that, then they should get a poor review.
I don’t know how often schools use a 360 review process, but with that example, it will certainly help.</p>
<p>It’s a lot of work to replace an employee, so it doesn’t usually happen for no good reason. Sometimes I think teachers don’t know this because they’ve never had to deal with what is the “real world” for most people. Sure, it is possible for people to be fired for frivolous reasons, but in school settings there is going to be a lot of negative community pressure on the principal if this were to occur. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed, but unfortunately, so many reviews are based on test scores, and when you have a population that doesnt care about education, no matter how good of a teacher you are, it wont necessarily show, therefore sometimes the only protection you have is tenure. But again, I know some bad teachers that teach in affluent districts, that are lazy as hell, and should be fired, but tenure is protecting them.</p>
<p>There have been cases in California, IIRC, in which a young teacher will win a ‘teacher of the year’ award and then be laid off because of the seniority rules. Last hired, first fired. </p>