I have been a Special Education teacher for 24 years, with the last 20 coming at a continuation high school in an impoverished Bay Area city. First of all, could the tenure system be modified? Of course, and I would say that most teachers would also be in favor streamlining the process to get rid of inept teachers.
However, I take great exception to those who lay the blame for what they perceive as the "failure" of the California school system solely on teachers ( and that's the way it seems to be spun publicly). Administration needs to be held accountable, but they rarely are...my principal just "non-reelected" (fired) a first year teacher who was incredible - she connected with the students, taught with rigor and had high expectations, and was a tremendous staff member. The reason given? Oh yeah, NONE! Why? Because that is the "right" of principals, so we can only assume it was a personality clash or something just as petty. So, our school lost a tremendous young teacher to the personal decision of an administrator. And who, come to think of it, would be making the decisions on retaining teachers in this brave new world of no tenure? School boards? District administrators? Principals? Absolutely, what could go wrong there?
By the way, our Superintendent makes more than $250,000 in a district that has ONE comprehensive high school. Why? We were told that to attract the best talent, you have to pay top dollar. Meanwhile, I haven't had a raise in six years. And every few years, I am told of a new educational system that is being implemented that we have to learn and effectively teach.
And parents better step up and accept their share of the blame. At our recent Back to School Night, I saw six parents...yep, six. Out of my 25 SpEd students, there are only 3-4 who come from two-parent homes. And trying to set up important meetings is like pulling teeth.
Finally, to those of you who naively believe teaching is a "cush" profession, let me politely say that you are freaking insane. At various times, besides being an educator, I am a: psychologist, nurse, parent, counselor, parole officer, bank, news reporter, etc. During my prep period and lunch, I stay in my room to give students a place they can get help and feel safe and secure. I am on stage for six hours a day, which is exhausting. And summers off? Right...summer school is a must to help make ends meet. Most teachers I know are good-hearted, skilled, and fully engaged in a profession that routinely gets demonized for all of our educational ills.
So for those of you who blithely make assumptions about a profession based on a few bad teachers, or underperforming schools that are often in areas of poverty and lack stable family situations for students (which I would argue have a HUGE impact on student performance), among other circumstances, it is a disappointing kick to the stomach for the vast majority of us who pour everything we have into our students.

majorursa;842325000 said:

---

I have been a Special Education teacher for 24 years, with the last 20 coming at a continuation high school in an impoverished Bay Area city. First of all, could the tenure system be modified? Of course, and I would say that most teachers would also be in favor streamlining the process to get rid of inept teachers.
However, I take great exception to those who lay the blame for what they perceive as the "failure" of the California school system solely on teachers ( and that's the way it seems to be spun publicly). Administration needs to be held accountable, but they rarely are...my principal just "non-reelected" (fired) a first year teacher who was incredible - she connected with the students, taught with rigor and had high expectations, and was a tremendous staff member. The reason given? Oh yeah, NONE! Why? Because that is the "right" of principals, so we can only assume it was a personality clash or something just as petty. So, our school lost a tremendous young teacher to the personal decision of an administrator. And who, come to think of it, would be making the decisions on retaining teachers in this brave new world of no tenure? School boards? District administrators? Principals? Absolutely, what could go wrong there?
By the way, our Superintendent makes more than $250,000 in a district that has ONE comprehensive high school. Why? We were told that to attract the best talent, you have to pay top dollar. Meanwhile, I haven't had a raise in six years. And every few years, I am told of a new educational system that is being implemented that we have to learn and effectively teach.
And parents better step up and accept their share of the blame. At our recent Back to School Night, I saw six parents...yep, six. Out of my 25 SpEd students, there are only 3-4 who come from two-parent homes. And trying to set up important meetings is like pulling teeth.
Finally, to those of you who naively believe teaching is a "cush" profession, let me politely say that you are freaking insane. At various times, besides being an educator, I am a: psychologist, nurse, parent, counselor, parole officer, bank, news reporter, etc. During my prep period and lunch, I stay in my room to give students a place they can get help and feel safe and secure. I am on stage for six hours a day, which is exhausting. And summers off? Right...summer school is a must to help make ends meet. Most teachers I know are good-hearted, skilled, and fully engaged in a profession that routinely gets demonized for all of our educational ills.
So for those of you who blithely make assumptions about a profession based on a few bad teachers, or underperforming schools that are often in areas of poverty and lack stable family situations for students (which I would argue have a HUGE impact on student performance), among other circumstances, it is a disappointing kick to the stomach for the vast majority of us who pour everything we have into our students.

---

Thanks for your thoughtful comments and I don't disagree with your assertions...and there are many reasons why public schools in CA are struggling; and in some cases even faing. However, I'm still not hearing any valid reasons about why tenure is warranted...

If kids are failing in school, I would look to their parents rather than their teachers. Teachers should not have to deal with a bunch of disrespectful, rude, basically "uncivilized" kids. But parents who are not civil themselves can not be expected to raise civil kids. How kids behave in school has everything to do with parenting, not with the teacher who often is unfairly forced to act like a policeman.

The teacher's job is often difficult. So are lots of other jobs. Irrespective of the situation in a "good" school or a "bad" school, good teachers, like good -- fill in the blank -- don't need tenure. Bad teachers, like bad -- fill in the blank -- should be easily terminated and should not have tenure. Some on this board suggest that "teaching" is a "special" profession. It isn't. It is just a job choice that some choose. For every Leon Litwack there are three hundred -- fill in the blank (not nearly as talented as Prof. Litwack).

majorursa;842325000 said:

---

I have been a Special Education teacher for 24 years, with the last 20 coming at a continuation high school in an impoverished Bay Area city. First of all, could the tenure system be modified? Of course, and I would say that most teachers would also be in favor streamlining the process to get rid of inept teachers.
However, I take great exception to those who lay the blame for what they perceive as the "failure" of the California school system solely on teachers ( and that's the way it seems to be spun publicly). Administration needs to be held accountable, but they rarely are...my principal just "non-reelected" (fired) a first year teacher who was incredible - she connected with the students, taught with rigor and had high expectations, and was a tremendous staff member. The reason given? Oh yeah, NONE! Why? Because that is the "right" of principals, so we can only assume it was a personality clash or something just as petty. So, our school lost a tremendous young teacher to the personal decision of an administrator. And who, come to think of it, would be making the decisions on retaining teachers in this brave new world of no tenure? School boards? District administrators? Principals? Absolutely, what could go wrong there?
By the way, our Superintendent makes more than $250,000 in a district that has ONE comprehensive high school. Why? We were told that to attract the best talent, you have to pay top dollar. Meanwhile, I haven't had a raise in six years. And every few years, I am told of a new educational system that is being implemented that we have to learn and effectively teach.
And parents better step up and accept their share of the blame. At our recent Back to School Night, I saw six parents...yep, six. Out of my 25 SpEd students, there are only 3-4 who come from two-parent homes. And trying to set up important meetings is like pulling teeth.
Finally, to those of you who naively believe teaching is a "cush" profession, let me politely say that you are freaking insane. At various times, besides being an educator, I am a: psychologist, nurse, parent, counselor, parole officer, bank, news reporter, etc. During my prep period and lunch, I stay in my room to give students a place they can get help and feel safe and secure. I am on stage for six hours a day, which is exhausting. And summers off? Right...summer school is a must to help make ends meet. Most teachers I know are good-hearted, skilled, and fully engaged in a profession that routinely gets demonized for all of our educational ills.
So for those of you who blithely make assumptions about a profession based on a few bad teachers, or underperforming schools that are often in areas of poverty and lack stable family situations for students (which I would argue have a HUGE impact on student performance), among other circumstances, it is a disappointing kick to the stomach for the vast majority of us who pour everything we have into our students.

---

I am not sure at all that my feelings reflect any kind of a majority, but when I read you comments, I think that you, as a teacher, misread what the public (that public that seems against teachers, if you will) thinks or feels.

After retirement as a professional in an entirely different field I have worked in three of my four grandchildren's classrooms, both with struggling students and with those "shooting the moon". Some of the teachers were great, some a little more so-so, but each had wonderful attributes. I have nothing but the utmost respect for each of those individuals and have told them so. They perform beautifully, some better than others, in a difficult environment. Some were academic ball busters, some were touchy feely, but each accomplished a lot.

Now for the disconnect. You teachers join a union. While I am for you and respect you 100%, I have nothing but the opposite for your representation. It presents itself as totally for "the kids" (which teachers are, unions aren't) while being totally for it's perpetuation while collecting $$$$ from you. Now, maybe my feelings are not the norm, but I perceive most parents of children really do highly regard their children's teachers (not all, but most). I also think most do not like the "push" of teachers unions which are no different than lobbyists for any special interest. I hope you can see the difference.

Cal79;842325022 said:

---

Thanks for your thoughtful comments and I don't disagree with your assertions...and there are many reasons why public schools in CA are struggling; and in some cases even faing. However, I'm still not hearing any valid reasons about why tenure is warranted...

---

Tenure might not be necessary, but the devil is in the details regarding any alternative. Basically, you have to have some form of protection for teachers that is outside the hands of the administration, or teachers have absolutely no incentive to grade honestly or with high standards. It's not true that only bad teachers need tenure, because incompetent teachers who give A's don't clash with the administration nearly as often as outstanding teachers who give C's. Even with tenure, most teachers will just give a kid whatever grade the administration wants in order not to be browbeaten constantly.

Standardized test scores are obviously the most efficient way to make things objective, so long as you're willing to accept what comes along with curricula that are entirely oriented toward doing well on the standardized tests. Maybe that's the best solution, but I wonder to what extent attitudes toward this are based on age? Most of my high school education was post-No Child Left Behind, and the in-class standardized test prep was always, always a waste of time, and I wonder if privileging it even more would be cutting off the nose to spite the face. Nonetheless, I obviously understand the need to get rid of truly incompetent teachers, especially given the socio-economic implications brought up in this particular case. I trust something like the AP tests to evaluate teacher performance, but that's way more time intensive to grade than a scantron, which is part of the problem: evaluating teacher performance in a meaningful way requires resources that we don't seem to have.

My guess is that teachers would dump tenure in a second if they were compensated like other professionals.

Tenure, like pensions, has traditionally been a way to make up for lower public sector wages. Pay teachers more, have a cost of living adjustment in places like CA, and you could easily negotiate a reduction. Otherwise, who gives up a benefit or leverage while getting low compensation?

I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue, but I'll ask a question myself: if there is no tenure for teachers, how is it decided which teachers stay on as teachers? In other words, who gets to decide on my fate? School Board, District Office, site administration? And on what criteria? Since so much of our world has to do with $$, canning an experienced teacher for a newbie saves a district at least $30,000. Wait a minute, that would never happen...right.

And standardized tests are laughable as measuring sticks for various reasons; so, for those of you clamoring for no more tenure for teachers, I would like to hear (truly, not being a smartass) any thoughts on how this new system would work.

I think this is what a lot of folks have a problem with. Teachers actually do make comparable salaries to other people w similar educations when you factor in their built in 3 month vacation.

beelzebear;842325045 said:

---

My guess is that teachers would dump tenure in a second if they were compensated like other professionals.

Tenure, like pensions, has traditionally been a way to make up for lower public sector wages. Pay teachers more, have a cost of living adjustment in places like CA, and you could easily negotiate a reduction. Otherwise, who gives up a benefit or leverage while getting low compensation?

---

hanky1;842325218 said:

---

I think this is what a lot of folks have a problem with. Teachers actually do make comparable salaries to other people w similar educations when you factor in their built in 3 month vacation.

---

Exactly.

Moreover, tenure was never intended to be a "benefit". It was intended to protect academic freedom in higher education and/or to ensure that k-12 teachers would not be fired for teaching controversial subjects. Tenure was never supposed to protect poor teachers.

The fact that tenure has come to be viewed as a "benefit" which ensures "permanent employment" highlights the current problems. Poorly performing teachers should not have greater job protections than other employees.

I've seen many people in this thread defending the honor of teachers (which, by and large I agree with). That is totally irrelevant to whether k-12 tenure (in its current form) serves any legitimate purpose and/or whether the "costs" of tenure are worth it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure_(academic)

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859505,00.html

hanky1;842325218 said:

---

I think this is what a lot of folks have a problem with. Teachers actually do make comparable salaries to other people w similar educations when you factor in their built in 3 month vacation.

---

Interesting when you consider firefighters also get time "off". They traditionally work 3 days 24 hrs but that means 4 days off per week.

When you consider firefighters get paid on average $120k in CA, while teachers get about $65k, you have to ask why are teachers being singled out for time off? Because it's not as dangerous or traditionally it was woman's work? Also the educational requirements for a teacher are much more difficult than firefighter.

Also I think the time off is more like 2 months now. So a teacher gets 2 months off, well they're still making $65k on average.

Regardless, I think teachers would toss tenure and summers off if they were paid as well as fire fighters, or police, i.e., a real FT $120k per/year. Money puts everything on the table. No money, no leverage, no change.

Like the saying goes, money talks...bullshit walks.

beelzebear;842325311 said:

---

Interesting when you consider firefighters also get time "off". They traditionally work 3 days 24 hrs but that means 4 days off per week.

When you consider firefighters get paid on average $120k in CA, while teachers get about $65k, you have to ask why are teachers being singled out for time off? Because it's not as dangerous or traditionally it was woman's work? Also the educational requirements for a teacher are much more difficult than firefighter.

Also I think the time off is more like 2 months now. So a teacher gets 2 months off, well they're still making $65k on average.

Regardless, I think teachers would toss tenure and summers off if they were paid as well as fire fighters, or police, i.e., a real FT $120k per/year. Money puts everything on the table. No money, no leverage, no change.

Like the saying goes, money talks...bullshit walks.

---

Firefighters also get overtime, sick pay etc, all of which makes them the most highly compensated employees in the Bay Area, more than Mayors in many cases. Nine out of the top ten salaries in San Jose were police and firefighters. All made more than $275,000. Same with other cities around the bay.

to claim you know something about the "worth" of our public school teachers, if you aren't one, and you haven't just finished glueing our society together for the past 9 months..That's okay, I don't know what it's like to be a doctor, lawyer, plumber, but I have been in the public classroom for forty years.

My thoughts on tenure don't matter since most of the teachers I have taught with all these years, don't consider it, think about it, nor hide behind it. They are educators, stop.

The argument in this case seems to be that some people complained that tenure allows crappy teachers to remain at under achieving schools, and as a result, the students get ripped off. It's unconstitutional for this to happen and it's our fault!

This happens. Yet, I don't want to teach at an under-funded school that has a poor socio-economic climate, maybe a high crime rate, and perhaps mostly non-English speakers. No thanks. Oh, and coach a sport and take some clubs? Teaching without books and with a leaky roof kinda sucks. Teaching 43 students with different languages and no parents at home also sucks. Getting criticized because every student doesn't get his A-Gs and AP scores sucks as well. Well, getting my car keyed and told to F off every day is really my fault too..bad teachers deserve sh*tty classes, right?

Stop with the teachers and look at the structure they serve in. There is no positive management. Ask a public school teacher how many times the principal has been in his/her room this year. How much professional guidance has there been? Opportunity for feedback and input? Professional development opportunities? Peer collaboration options? How about some time out to...lesson plan together?? And who exactly are these managers? Teachers who get their MAs at National University in educational administration..pfffft. Observations and evaluations are only every other year and the administrators can't understand the lesson plans that your sons and daughters do.

Education departments are bloated with administrators, curriculum advisors, and mindless frameworks that are only geared for test success. Common Core was designed by politicians, not us! Discipline or consequences in public school have given way to "everyone passes." Challenging curriculum has been water-downed so that every kid has a "chance." We dumb down everything and get away with it since your kids will still get into college. Failing in high school is a "fast track to jail" - or so we've been told this year.

You non-teachers out there - Bear Insider fans - don't use your own community school or your successful kids as examples here. Visit at-risk communities. Would YOU work there? What resources do you see? What is the physical plant like? See any technology? What about goal setting and realistic challenges, including vocational education where it is appropriate? What is YOUR own management team like? Do you even have one? We don't get any professional guidance beyond warnings and threats to improve test scores. What does that do to us professionally? We've become gatekeepers.

Most of my teaching colleagues take great pride in challenging your children and to be honest, want more than just a little protection on the job. Administrators can be viscious and petty and are there to protect their jobs first. Principals are nothing more than politicians, although there are some I've worked with, who have values and can call themselves educators as well.

Our "unions" (teachers associations) have given us simple worker's rights that we deserve, and yes, they have become political. There is no denying the value of our profession to our society, but laying blame on us because some schools are under-achieving is not going to fly.

Sorry, I'll be better in 74 days..Cal beats Northwestern and skool starts back up a couple days later!

Thank you 72Cal...perfectly summed up.

This is another canard tossed around by the teacher's union - there are no perfectly objective criteria for terminating teachers. Guess what - in the real world there aren't perfectly objective criteria for firing people either; and people get fired. Unless you start firing and hiring people based on their height, whatever criteria is chosen - the unions will whine to the high heavens regardless....

OdontoBear66;842324809 said:

---

Different folks, different strokes. When you have to try to sell a GM car with over a thousand dollars (close to two thousand) in each car going to union pension plans, I say wrong. You think right. Fine. Salary should be reasonable. Making "Buy American" tough is wrong. The culprit is the unions, not management. All depends which lenses at which you look at life.

---

What about making better cars?

1979bear;842325029 said:

---

Some on this board suggest that "teaching" is a "special" profession. It isn't. It is just a job choice that some choose. For every Leon Litwack there are three hundred -- fill in the blank (not nearly as talented as Prof. Litwack).

---

I am not in favor of the current K-12 tenure system. But this post is very misguided.

The reason I oppose the current K-12 tenure system is that it isn't particularly difficult to become a K-12 teacher. And the tenure review process is not very arduous. So a lot of young teachers just get tenure by getting a teaching credential doing an adequate job in their first couple of years.

This is not the case in higher education. First, college professors require 5-11 years of post-undergrad graduate education. Second, they require the academic freedom that can only come with tenure. Third, their review process is extremely arduous and difficult and can take between 5-8 years. This extra preparation and evaluation makes university level tenure workable. Finally, the heavy publishing requirements make the so-called 3 month long "vacation" that K-12 teachers get an impossibility.

Many K-12 educators are indeed doing a tremendous service to the country. I do think it is a special vocation. But I also think it should be much easier to fire bad teachers, since it does not require the excessive training and evaluation to obtain tenure at that level.

72CalBear;842325331 said:

---

to claim you know something about the "worth" of our public school teachers, if you aren't one, and you haven't just finished glueing our society together for the past 9 months..That's okay, I don't know what it's like to be a doctor, lawyer, plumber, but I have been in the public classroom for forty years.

My thoughts on tenure don't matter since most of the teachers I have taught with all these years, don't consider it, think about it, nor hide behind it. They are educators, stop.

The argument in this case seems to be that some people complained that tenure allows crappy teachers to remain at under achieving schools, and as a result, the students get ripped off. It's unconstitutional for this to happen and it's our fault!

This happens. Yet, I don't want to teach at an under-funded school that has a poor socio-economic climate, maybe a high crime rate, and perhaps mostly non-English speakers. No thanks. Oh, and coach a sport and take some clubs? Teaching without books and with a leaky roof kinda sucks. Teaching 43 students with different languages and no parents at home also sucks. Getting criticized because every student doesn't get his A-Gs and AP scores sucks as well. Well, getting my car keyed and told to F off every day is really my fault too..bad teachers deserve sh*tty classes, right?

Stop with the teachers and look at the structure they serve in. There is no positive management. Ask a public school teacher how many times the principal has been in his/her room this year. How much professional guidance has there been? Opportunity for feedback and input? Professional development opportunities? Peer collaboration options? How about some time out to...lesson plan together?? And who exactly are these managers? Teachers who get their MAs at National University in educational administration..pfffft. Observations and evaluations are only every other year and the administrators can't understand the lesson plans that your sons and daughters do.

Education departments are bloated with administrators, curriculum advisors, and mindless frameworks that are only geared for test success. Common Core was designed by politicians, not us! Discipline or consequences in public school have given way to "everyone passes." Challenging curriculum has been water-downed so that every kid has a "chance." We dumb down everything and get away with it since your kids will still get into college. Failing in high school is a "fast track to jail" - or so we've been told this year.

You non-teachers out there - Bear Insider fans - don't use your own community school or your successful kids as examples here. Visit at-risk communities. Would YOU work there? What resources do you see? What is the physical plant like? See any technology? What about goal setting and realistic challenges, including vocational education where it is appropriate? What is YOUR own management team like? Do you even have one? We don't get any professional guidance beyond warnings and threats to improve test scores. What does that do to us professionally? We've become gatekeepers.

Most of my teaching colleagues take great pride in challenging your children and to be honest, want more than just a little protection on the job. Administrators can be viscious and petty and are there to protect their jobs first. Principals are nothing more than politicians, although there are some I've worked with, who have values and can call themselves educators as well.

Our "unions" (teachers associations) have given us simple worker's rights that we deserve, and yes, they have become political. There is no denying the value of our profession to our society, but laying blame on us because some schools are under-achieving is not going to fly.

Sorry, I'll be better in 74 days..Cal beats Northwestern and skool starts back up a couple days later!

---

I would be interested in either yours or majorursa's response to my post about a perception that the public really does like teachers, but switches when it comes to your unions. And I mean a 180.

The Duke!;842325401 said:

---

I am not in favor of the current K-12 tenure system. But this post is very misguided.

The reason I oppose the current K-12 tenure system is that it isn't particularly difficult to become a K-12 teacher. And the tenure review process is not very arduous. So a lot of young teachers just get tenure by getting a teaching credential doing an adequate job in their first couple of years.

This is not the case in higher education. First, college professors require 5-11 years of post-undergrad graduate education. Second, they require the academic freedom that can only come with tenure. Third, their review process is extremely arduous and difficult and can take between 5-8 years. This extra preparation and evaluation makes university level tenure workable. Finally, the heavy publishing requirements make the so-called 3 month long "vacation" that K-12 teachers get an impossibility.

Many K-12 educators are indeed doing a tremendous service to the country. I do think it is a special vocation. But I also think it should be much easier to fire bad teachers, since it does not require the excessive training and evaluation to obtain tenure at that level.

---

I shouldn't have used Litwack as an example. I meant there are three hundred average insignificant teachers for each great one in the public schools. In my experience, it was about one in 90, but I got the best teachers.

I don't have too much more to add that hasn't been said other than:
What's clear is that SOMETHING has to change.
My perspective:
Teachers as a group aren't the "bad guys". The institution and the system that prevents the obviously bad teachers from being fired is the issue. Making a small change to make teachers more accountable should be applauded by all, teachers included.

I loved my job as a teacher (Skyline HS in Oakland) and I poured my heart and soul into it. Teaching is NOT just another job. It's a job where one can make a direct difference, not one where you just check in at 8 and out by 5 with a cushy 2 month break. When you care and your passionate about what you do, you're on the job 24-7 (making lesson plans, calling and chasing down students/families, attending school events, the list goes on..) And the more you care, the harder it can be because your job is never done. Unfortunately, not everyone in the profession has the same mentality. And unfortunately for me, because of the budget (the year I worked for Oakland, they found themselves nearly 100 million in debt and were taken over by the state the following year) most of the new teachers were not rehired, even if our performance and feed back was there.

There is nothing more disheartening than having sacrificed and worked so hard for others and then seeing others who are supposed to be your mentors just slack off and do nothing but coast. It made me feel completely powerless to make a difference and I lost a lot of faith in humanity.

On the flip side, there is nothing as inspiring as those who continue to work as teachers/educators and continue to give themselves and share their knowledge and energy with their students, and their fellow educators. Major props to anyone still in the education field, and if I ever run into you, I'll always buy you a glass. I myself was hoping to return to the field of K-12 education, but life has taken a few turns and I now find myself in the next most bungled of professions: healthcare. I am a sucker for pain.

OdontoBear66;842325411 said:

---

I would be interested in either yours or majorursa's response to my post about a perception that the public really does like teachers, but switches when it comes to your unions. And I mean a 180.

---

Frankly, teachers are so incredibly busy - and the layers of responsibility in the classroom continue to increase - that we have little time to truly examine and even determine who or what makes up our teacher's associations. This is not an excuse, but it is a reality.

I worked on our very first collective bargaining agreement with our school district my very first year of teaching in l974. Why a first year teacher? Because no one else wanted to or could, do it. I was our teacher's association rep for 9 years. More hours on top of an already long day of teaching and coaching, grading papers, preparing, etc. In that time, we achieved some long overdue protections and benefits. Health and dental plans, maternity and bereavement leave, paid holidays and conference periods (elementary teachers in our district still don't get paid conference periods! Incredible how hard they work for you), no more bus or restroom duties, a long contract of rights and shared responsibilities with the district, a realistic scope of work, liability insurance, workday start and end times, paid jury duty, etc etc..and, we could opt out of having to pay both California and National association dues if we felt they weren't representing us (ie political conflicts). Many of us don't even share some of the political views that many people believe we have.

Let people perceive what they want about our holidays and summer. Like many teachers, I have always had a second job, never had a summer off, and have an incorporated business and now face a full summer employing your kids, paying taxes, and supporting private enterprise. Every teacher should own a business, and every business owner should try teaching. Both groups would no doubt shut up.

72CalBear;842325629 said:

---

Frankly, teachers are so incredibly busy - and the layers of responsibility in the classroom continue to increase - that we have little time to truly examine and even determine who or what makes up our teacher's associations. This is not an excuse, but it is a reality.

I worked on our very first collective bargaining agreement with our school district my very first year of teaching in l974. Why a first year teacher? Because no one else wanted to or could, do it. I was our teacher's association rep for 9 years. More hours on top of an already long day of teaching and coaching, grading papers, preparing, etc. In that time, we achieved some long overdue protections and benefits. Health and dental plans, maternity and bereavement leave, paid holidays and conference periods (elementary teachers in our district still don't get paid conference periods! Incredible how hard they work for you), no more bus or restroom duties, a long contract of rights and shared responsibilities with the district, a realistic scope of work, liability insurance, workday start and end times, paid jury duty, etc etc..and, we could opt out of having to pay both California and National association dues if we felt they weren't representing us (ie political conflicts). Many of us don't even share some of the political views that many people believe we have.

Let people perceive what they want about our holidays and summer. Like many teachers, I have always had a second job, never had a summer off, and have an incorporated business and now face a full summer employing your kids, paying taxes, and supporting private enterprise. Every teacher should own a business, and every business owner should try teaching. Both groups would no doubt shut up.

---

Your posts have provided valuable insights into the thoughts and perspective of a teacher which, of course, deserve to be heard by all. I'm sure you're a dedicated and well qualified teacher.

However, you haven't provided any justification for why tenure should be required/permitted. The fact that other aspects of the educational system are flawed doesn't mean that we should ignore the negative impact of tenure and teachers unions. No one is saying tenure/unions are the only problem. Bottom line, even if I assume your viewpoint is 100% "correct", you have not offered a defense of tenure - you have simply changed the subject.

With regard to your choice to be employed during the summer, that is also a non-sequitur. The point raised above is that teacher compensation needs to be evaluated in light of the fact that taking into account spring break, Christmas break, holidays, and other non-school days, teachers work somewhere between 8.5-9 months a year (i.e. the total compensation is for only part of the year). The fact that you work during your summer break is irrelevant to that point.

Cal79;842324600 said:

---

Hearing LOTS of arguments back-and-forth. Still waiting to hear why tenure is warranted...

---

I will try to explain it to you. So-called "tenure" (a word that does not appear in the Education Code or any Collective Bargaining Agreement with which I am familiar) is nothing more than a due process right, a right not to be fired without "just cause," which is common in union contracts both in public and private sector.

Can incompetent teachers be fired? Yes, and they are, with a showing of "just cause." Can teachers who do bad things fired? Yes, and they are, with a showing of "just cause."

Can a teacher be fired on a whim or based on a personalty conflict? No, not if that teacher has "permanent status," which gives him/her a due process right. In the first two years, however, the teacher can be fired without a reason through a process called "non-reelection."

Do teachers need "just cause" protection? Absolutely. As someone mentioned much earlier in the thread, so-called "tenure" protects the teacher who has the audacity to teach evolution. It protects the teacher who followed legal obligations and reported child abuse. It protects the teacher who gave a "bad" grade to a child of a politically connected parent. It protects the teacher who does not agree to stay until 6:00 to conduct "optional" study hall (providing services for free). It protects the teacher who refuses to work duty a "duty free" lunch. It protects teachers from being fired for not going to church or for getting married - which used to be the case prior to teacher unions winning "due process" rights through lobbying efforts of CTA and CFT.

Do "probationary" (usually 1st two years but in some circumstances it takes a 3rd year) teachers have the protections discussed in the preceding paragraph? No. Remember, they can be "non-relected" for no cause, reason, or recourse.

So why aren't more teachers "fired?" First, statistics about dismissals do not include those who choose to resign. Second, there are too many administrators (the highest paid people in the system other than high-priced and often unnecessary "consultants") are too lazy to do their jobs. Is it difficult work? Yes, but it is not impossible; it just takes a willingness to document the problems and offer guidance and assistance. And remember, these people are making 6-figure salaries, and never have to grade papers or prepare lessons.

As someone posted above, teachers do not like having bad teachers in their schools, particularly at the grade level below theirs (or, at the secondary level, the period before theirs) as these "weak links" not only demean the profession but make their own jobs more difficult.

Are teacher unions to blame? No. The unions do not hire, train, evaluate, or dismiss teachers. Administrators do.

Could the process be more streamlined? Sure. But the current convoluted configuration benefits the employer which has greater access to attorneys (some districts have their own general counsel's office) and the money to pay them than the individual teacher. (The local union may help with fees but cannot completely cover the costs.) And the district gets 80-85% of its costs reimbursed by the state.

So what happens without so-called "tenure?" Without any other protection, teachers become "employees at will," subject to dismissal for any number of inappropriate reasons (as briefly outlined above). Will that improve instruction? Well, let me tell you about one school (that was a California Distinguished School) where the principal constantly praised one teacher who showed movies every period and gave every student an "A" or a "B." The administration loved him because they never received a complaint from a parent. Other teachers who held students to high standards, pushing them to do their best, sometimes incurred the wrath of parents who felt their children were geniuses who could do no wrong. Those teachers (the best the in the school, the ones who were visited ten years later by college graduates who returned to thank them) were protected by the very "tenure" many wish to abolish.

BearGoggles;842324285 said:

---

Do you have children in public schools? I'm guessing not - a lot has changed in recent years.

Most notably, teachers now have "prep" periods (for grading, etc)., paid days outside the classroom for "training" (god forbid they do that during summer), and lots of other perks that did not exist 30 years ago. My sons go to public to schools and I'm astounded by how many days their teachers are absent for reasons other than illness - days where the students learn virtually nothing. In addition, some teachers (not all), have grown comfortable and lazy precisely because they have tenure. For example, many of my sons' teachers will not allow students to take home their tests because they want to re-use the tests year after year.

There are many good teachers. Unfortunately, some are not as good. The problem with tenure (and union workplace rules), is that we have to teach all of those teachers the same, without regard to actual performance. I would be in favor of paying great teachers more if we could pay poor teachers less (or better yet, fire them).

---

I don't know where you've been, but I went to high school in the 1970's and my teachers had "prep" periods which were used to prepare lessons, grade papers, retrieve textbooks, conference with parents, consult with counselors, etc.

Paid days outside the classroom? I don't know where you live, but in most districts in Southern California there are 2-5 "pupil free" or "professional development" days per year. These are filled with mandatory in-services or trainings of various quality, and are not "free time" opportunities.

Sick days? Really, you want to go there? In many inner-city schools, parents send their children to school regardless of their health, since they have no child care alternatives, causing the classroom to be petrie dish of diseases. Teachers get ten (10) days per year, which accumulate. Most rarely use these days, saving them for the possibility of catastrophic illnesses which may require extended absences. Yes, teachers get cancer just like people who work in the private sector. And you know what, the "tenure" you despise prevents them from being fired the first time they have an extended absence due to legitimate illness.

Regarding teacher performance, they are evaluated as frequently as the principal desires. If they receive "below standard" evaluations, they are in danger of losing their jobs. Yes, that happens even if they have "tenure" which is nothing more than a "just cause" standard that allows employees to be terminated for poor performance.

OdontoBear66;842325038 said:

---

I am not sure at all that my feelings reflect any kind of a majority, but when I read you comments, I think that you, as a teacher, misread what the public (that public that seems against teachers, if you will) thinks or feels.

After retirement as a professional in an entirely different field I have worked in three of my four grandchildren's classrooms, both with struggling students and with those "shooting the moon". Some of the teachers were great, some a little more so-so, but each had wonderful attributes. I have nothing but the utmost respect for each of those individuals and have told them so. They perform beautifully, some better than others, in a difficult environment. Some were academic ball busters, some were touchy feely, but each accomplished a lot.

Now for the disconnect. You teachers join a union. While I am for you and respect you 100%, I have nothing but the opposite for your representation. It presents itself as totally for "the kids" (which teachers are, unions aren't) while being totally for it's perpetuation while collecting $$$$ from you. Now, maybe my feelings are not the norm, but I perceive most parents of children really do highly regard their children's teachers (not all, but most). I also think most do not like the "push" of teachers unions which are no different than lobbyists for any special interest. I hope you can see the difference.

---

So you like teachers but not the unions that protect their rights, such as:

• The right not to be compelled to work for free in the evenings,
  
• The right not to be compelled to do supervision duties during lunch,
  
• The right to teach evolution despite the religious preferences of their governing board or administration,
  
• The right to give a fair and accurate grade and not be pressured by a parent who is friends with an administrator or school board trustee,
  
• The right to have "just cause" protection and not be fired without cause, without notice, and without recourse,
  
• Etc.
  

southseasbear;842325661 said:

---

I don't know where you've been, but I went to high school in the 1970's and my teachers had "prep" periods which were used to prepare lessons, grade papers, retrieve textbooks, conference with parents, consult with counselors, etc.

Paid days outside the classroom? I don't know where you live, but in most districts in Southern California there are 2-5 "pupil free" or "professional development" days per year. These are filled with mandatory in-services or trainings of various quality, and are not "free time" opportunities.

Sick days? Really, you want to go there? In many inner-city schools, parents send their children to school regardless of their health, since they have no child care alternatives, causing the classroom to be petrie dish of diseases. Teachers get ten (10) days per year, which accumulate. Most rarely use these days, saving them for the possibility of catastrophic illnesses which may require extended absences. Yes, teachers get cancer just like people who work in the private sector. And you know what, the "tenure" you despise prevents them from being fired the first time they have an extended absence due to legitimate illness.

Regarding teacher performance, they are evaluated as frequently as the principal desires. If they receive "below standard" evaluations, they are in danger of losing their jobs. Yes, that happens even if they have "tenure" which is nothing more than a "just cause" standard that allows employees to be terminated for poor performance.

---

There is a bipartisan bill sailing through the CA legislature which makes it "easy" to terminate teachers who engage in improper conduct, etc. Very streamlined procedures. I assume this is a response to the court case. I notice that everyone seems focused on unions, teachers, the problems with schools and the like, though the court case was focused on certain abuses that took place in schools with minority and poor students. So while you guys are debating the ills of education system and society, believe it or not, our legislature is responding to what the case actually talked about.

southseasbear;842325658 said:

---

I will try to explain it to you. So-called "tenure" (a word that does not appear in the Education Code or any Collective Bargaining Agreement with which I am familiar) is nothing more than a due process right, a right not to be fired without "just cause," which is common in union contracts both in public and private sector.

Can incompetent teachers be fired? Yes, and they are, with a showing of "just cause." Can teachers who do bad things fired? Yes, and they are, with a showing of "just cause."

Can a teacher be fired on a whim or based on a personalty conflict? No, not if that teacher has "permanent status," which gives him/her a due process right. In the first two years, however, the teacher can be fired without a reason through a process called "non-reelection."

Do teachers need "just cause" protection? Absolutely. As someone mentioned much earlier in the thread, so-called "tenure" protects the teacher who has the audacity to teach evolution. It protects the teacher who followed legal obligations and reported child abuse. It protects the teacher who gave a "bad" grade to a child of a politically connected parent. It protects the teacher who does not agree to stay until 6:00 to conduct "optional" study hall (providing services for free). It protects the teacher who refuses to work duty a "duty free" lunch. It protects teachers from being fired for not going to church or for getting married - which used to be the case prior to teacher unions winning "due process" rights through lobbying efforts of CTA and CFT.

Do "probationary" (usually 1st two years but in some circumstances it takes a 3rd year) teachers have the protections discussed in the preceding paragraph? No. Remember, they can be "non-relected" for no cause, reason, or recourse.

So why aren't more teachers "fired?" First, statistics about dismissals do not include those who choose to resign. Second, there are too many administrators (the highest paid people in the system other than high-priced and often unnecessary "consultants") are too lazy to do their jobs. Is it difficult work? Yes, but it is not impossible; it just takes a willingness to document the problems and offer guidance and assistance. And remember, these people are making 6-figure salaries, and never have to grade papers or prepare lessons.

As someone posted above, teachers do not like having bad teachers in their schools, particularly at the grade level below theirs (or, at the secondary level, the period before theirs) as these "weak links" not only demean the profession but make their own jobs more difficult.

Are teacher unions to blame? No. The unions do not hire, train, evaluate, or dismiss teachers. Administrators do.

Could the process be more streamlined? Sure. But the current convoluted configuration benefits the employer which has greater access to attorneys (some districts have their own general counsel's office) and the money to pay them than the individual teacher. (The local union may help with fees but cannot completely cover the costs.) And the district gets 80-85% of its costs reimbursed by the state.

So what happens without so-called "tenure?" Without any other protection, teachers become "employees at will," subject to dismissal for any number of inappropriate reasons (as briefly outlined above). Will that improve instruction? Well, let me tell you about one school (that was a California Distinguished School) where the principal constantly praised one teacher who showed movies every period and gave every student an "A" or a "B." The administration loved him because they never received a complaint from a parent. Other teachers who held students to high standards, pushing them to do their best, sometimes incurred the wrath of parents who felt their children were geniuses who could do no wrong. Those teachers (the best the in the school, the ones who were visited ten years later by college graduates who returned to thank them) were protected by the very "tenure" many wish to abolish.

---

Wow, I finish up my 16th year of being a public school teacher, go on vacation for a week, come back... and a 10-page firestorm -- right in my wheelhouse, no less -- has hit BI.

Nice post. Same with those from "72" and the other teachers in this thread.

We teachers hate lousy teachers. The one (out of 90) who teaches at my school is ignored in the lunchroom.

The "tenure system" should be tweaked a little bit, but is a good thing because it protects the jobs of teachers who dare to call BS when they see incompetent administrators screwing up public education. (This is just one reason, but some in this thread have cited a complete lack of reasons for "tenure", so there's one.)

beelzebear;842325311 said:

---

Interesting when you consider firefighters also get time "off". They traditionally work 3 days 24 hrs but that means 4 days off per week.

When you consider firefighters get paid on average $120k in CA, while teachers get about $65k, you have to ask why are teachers being singled out for time off? Because it's not as dangerous or traditionally it was woman's work? Also the educational requirements for a teacher are much more difficult than firefighter.

Also I think the time off is more like 2 months now. So a teacher gets 2 months off, well they're still making $65k on average.

Regardless, I think teachers would toss tenure and summers off if they were paid as well as fire fighters, or police, i.e., a real FT $120k per/year. Money puts everything on the table. No money, no leverage, no change.

Like the saying goes, money talks...bullshit walks.

---

How many school shootings have there been in the past 20+ years. And in how many of them have teachers placed their lives at risk to protect the kids. Why? Because the teachers feel responsible for the kids.
Them tell me how cushy a job teachers have.

GivemTheAxe;842325673 said:

---

How many school shootings have there been in the past 20+ years. And in how many of them have teachers placed their lives at risk to protect the kids. Why? Because the teachers feel responsible for the kids.
Them tell me how cushy a job teachers have.

---

Thank you. And let's not forget other union "thugs" such as firefighters, police, nurses, etc.

wifeisafurd;842325668 said:

---

There is a bipartisan bill sailing through the CA legislature which makes it "easy" to terminate teachers who engage in improper conduct, etc. Very streamlined procedures. I assume this is a response to the court case. I notice that everyone seems focused on unions, teachers, the problems with schools and the like, though the court case was focused on certain abuses that took place in schools with minority and poor students. So while you guys are debating the ills of education system and society, believe it or not, our legislature is responding to what the case actually talked about.

---

The bipartisan bill predates the Vergara verdict and was a response to the bill proposed by Alex Padilla that would have destroyed due process protections. Without writing a treatise on its flaws, the bottom line is that teachers would still have had the "right" to a hearing before an administrative law judge, but the opinion would be advisory, so even if a teacher had compelling evidence to dispute frivolous charges, the district would retain sole discretion to dismiss. Now some of you may say, "so what, that's what happens in private sector." It's important to understand that public sector employees make less than those in private sector, and (more importantly) there is a stigma in public sector, particularly education, regarding employees dismissed elsewhere. You may get "let go" from a bank, movie studio, law firm, etc. and still find a job elsewhere; that is not the case with public school teachers.

The current bipartisan bill is supported by CTA (and I think CFT) but it too has flaws: it requires districts to reveal any allegations of a serious matter regardless of how old and regardless of the outcome. So, an innocent teacher is accused of child abuse (which happens all the time, as retaliatory students have learned it gets the teacher removed from the school for months, even if the teacher gets to keep his/her job), exonerated, and then ten years later chooses to move to another part of the state. The district would have to reveal the allegations to the prospective employer.

Big C_Cal;842325671 said:

---

Wow, I finish up my 16th year of being a public school teacher, go on vacation for a week, come back... and a 10-page firestorm -- right in my wheelhouse, no less -- has hit BI.

Nice post. Same with those from "72" and the other teachers in this thread.

We teachers hate lousy teachers. The one (out of 90) who teaches at my school is ignored in the lunchroom.

The "tenure system" should be tweaked a little bit, but is a good thing because it protects the jobs of teachers who dare to call BS when they see incompetent administrators screwing up public education. (This is just one reason, but some in this thread have cited a complete lack of reasons for "tenure", so there's one.)

---

I was looking for a post from you through ten pages, Big C and thought it strange not a peep from you. I kind of knew where I stood on this issue but was waiting for your confirmation. And I agree, very convincing posts by 72, Southseas, Ursa and the other teachers !

southseasbear;842325662 said:

---

So you like teachers but not the unions that protect their rights, such as:

• The right not to be compelled to work for free in the evenings,
  
• The right not to be compelled to do supervision duties during lunch,
  
• The right to teach evolution despite the religious preferences of their governing board or administration,
  
• The right to give a fair and accurate grade and not be pressured by a parent who is friends with an administrator or school board trustee,
  
• The right to have "just cause" protection and not be fired without cause, without notice, and without recourse,
  
• Etc.
  

---

Those rights, I believe I indicated, were abused before Taft-Hartley, and my best guess was for a period of time thereafter. Those protections have long since been cast in concrete. It is the reach of unions to protect their bureaucracy and the forced contributions from "all" members that go to lobbying that I find objectionable. If you have read any other appeals of mine in this thread and others it is toward a moderate stance. I do not think you would find me objecting to any of the rights you have listed above. And I do think you know what my reference is to---that of unions existing for unions per se, not for "the kids" as they infer in any way.

Let me give you an example. I am a member of AARP. I get certain benefits, but object to most of their political stances. I can weigh whether the benefits I get are more important than the philosophy I disagree with, and decide as to continue being a member or not. Or if I were to work for a bank or a brokerage house, or an insurance company I would not be forced to have a portion of my salary go to a political party I did not agree with. Something along that order, but not specifically correct.

southseasbear;842325658 said:

---

I will try to explain it to you. So-called "tenure" (a word that does not appear in the Education Code or any Collective Bargaining Agreement with which I am familiar) is nothing more than a due process right, a right not to be fired without "just cause," which is common in union contracts both in public and private sector.

Can incompetent teachers be fired? Yes, and they are, with a showing of "just cause." Can teachers who do bad things fired? Yes, and they are, with a showing of "just cause."

Can a teacher be fired on a whim or based on a personalty conflict? No, not if that teacher has "permanent status," which gives him/her a due process right. In the first two years, however, the teacher can be fired without a reason through a process called "non-reelection."

Do teachers need "just cause" protection? Absolutely. As someone mentioned much earlier in the thread, so-called "tenure" protects the teacher who has the audacity to teach evolution. It protects the teacher who followed legal obligations and reported child abuse. It protects the teacher who gave a "bad" grade to a child of a politically connected parent. It protects the teacher who does not agree to stay until 6:00 to conduct "optional" study hall (providing services for free). It protects the teacher who refuses to work duty a "duty free" lunch. It protects teachers from being fired for not going to church or for getting married - which used to be the case prior to teacher unions winning "due process" rights through lobbying efforts of CTA and CFT.

Do "probationary" (usually 1st two years but in some circumstances it takes a 3rd year) teachers have the protections discussed in the preceding paragraph? No. Remember, they can be "non-relected" for no cause, reason, or recourse.

So why aren't more teachers "fired?" First, statistics about dismissals do not include those who choose to resign. Second, there are too many administrators (the highest paid people in the system other than high-priced and often unnecessary "consultants") are too lazy to do their jobs. Is it difficult work? Yes, but it is not impossible; it just takes a willingness to document the problems and offer guidance and assistance. And remember, these people are making 6-figure salaries, and never have to grade papers or prepare lessons.
As someone posted above, teachers do not like having bad teachers in their schools, particularly at the grade level below theirs (or, at the secondary level, the period before theirs) as these "weak links" not only demean the profession but make their own jobs more difficult.

Are teacher unions to blame? No. The unions do not hire, train, evaluate, or dismiss teachers. Administrators do.

Could the process be more streamlined? Sure. But the current convoluted configuration benefits the employer which has greater access to attorneys (some districts have their own general counsel's office) and the money to pay them than the individual teacher. (The local union may help with fees but cannot completely cover the costs.) And the district gets 80-85% of its costs reimbursed by the state.

So what happens without so-called "tenure?" Without any other protection, teachers become "employees at will," subject to dismissal for any number of inappropriate reasons (as briefly outlined above). Will that improve instruction? Well, let me tell you about one school (that was a California Distinguished School) where the principal constantly praised one teacher who showed movies every period and gave every student an "A" or a "B." The administration loved him because they never received a complaint from a parent. Other teachers who held students to high standards, pushing them to do their best, sometimes incurred the wrath of parents who felt their children were geniuses who could do no wrong. Those teachers (the best the in the school, the ones who were visited ten years later by college graduates who returned to thank them) were protected by the very "tenure" many wish to abolish.

---

No one has suggested that teachers should be deprived due process or denied "just cause" protections. The problem is that the current tenure regime (that is an apt description of it, even if the actual word is not used in statutes or CBAs) makes firing a teacher prohibitively expensive and time consuming.

Notwithstanding your assertion that they have no blame, the unions are absolutely to blame for intentionally creating a system where firing a teacher is next to impossible. Your assertion that this system "benefits the employer" is laughable - if that was the case why would the Unions be fighting any and all reforms to the current system?

Moreover, there has been extensive reporting on the lengthy time period and extremely high cost of firing teachers. The procedural roadblocks and attorneys fees create a strong disincentive to even try. "California has more than 1,000 school districts and 300,000 teachers, yet only 667 dismissal cases were filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings between January 2003 and March 2012, according to the Los Angeles Unified School District's chief labor and employment counsel, Alex Molina" (see linked CC Times article below). By any measure, this is not a system that benefits the employer, unless you believe that less than .3% (yes, less than 3/10ths of one percent) of teachers deserve to be fired.

Even in the rare circumstance a district does try to fire a teacher, the review "commissions", stacked by the Unions and their political cronies, often fail to fire teachers even in extreme circumstances (such as a teacher found with porn, pot, and coke at school).

So the issue isn't due process. The issue is that the process has become so expensive and time consuming, that it is almost impossible to fire a teacher even for just cause. The problem is so bad, that in NY, they are simply paying teachers not to teach, rather than firing them.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/03/local/me-teachers3

http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_22454532/firing-tenured-teacher-california-can-be-tough

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/22/new-york-teachers-paid-to_n_219336.html

wifeisafurd;842325668 said:

---

There is a bipartisan bill sailing through the CA legislature which makes it "easy" to terminate teachers who engage in improper conduct, etc. Very streamlined procedures. I assume this is a response to the court case. I notice that everyone seems focused on unions, teachers, the problems with schools and the like, though the court case was focused on certain abuses that took place in schools with minority and poor students. So while you guys are debating the ills of education system and society, believe it or not, our legislature is responding to what the case actually talked about.

---

I believe that bill refers to "gross misconduct" cases, whereas the subject here is geared more towards "significantly below average" to "way below average" teachers.

jyamada;842325702 said:

---

I was looking for a post from you through ten pages, Big C and thought it strange not a peep from you. I kind of knew where I stood on this issue but was waiting for your confirmation. And I agree, very convincing posts by 72, Southseas, Ursa and the other teachers !

---

LOL, I was way out of the area and didn't even hear about the ruling until I scanned BI last night.

Seriously, when there is a lousy school principal, or a lousy district superintendent (the people who can, singlehandedly, really wreck education) it is invariably a cadre of tenured teachers who first recognize the problem and initiate the person's ouster. Without tenure, they probably wouldn't dare.

In the private sector, horrible leadership is usually quickly evident in the bottom line. In public education, it's just not the same. To believe that the public schools can be improved by injecting private sector incentives/disincentives may sound good on the surface, but it's way too simplistic an argument.

Teachers unions are doing a lousy job shaping their image lately. They're SUPPOSED to be advocates for teachers. Nobody probably has any problem with that. But when they also try to play "educational consultant" and the lines get blurred, that's where the problems start.

Part One with "the problem with the public schools" is that there isn't nearly as much of a problem as some might think. For every bad thing that happens, hundreds of good things happen -- each and every day -- that go unreported because they don't make for as good a news story.

Part Two is that students do not come to school prepared to learn. It's a societal problem. We just don't value education and learning that much, let's face it.

Part Three is that the public schools are grossly underfunded.

Indeed, there are Parts Four, Five, Six, etc. and the teachers definitely fit in there somewhere, fairly highly. I could go on and on and on. Everybody thinks they know about K-12 education because they were involved in it themselves for thirteen years of their lives, but they likely don't have true knowledge of what's going on. If I had a few heart bypass operations, would I start badgering my heart surgeon to use the Floobert Method instead of the Acme Method on the next one?

BearGoggles;842325755 said:

---

No one has suggested that teachers should be deprived due process or denied "just cause" protections. The problem is that the current tenure regime (that is an apt description of it, even if the actual word is not used in statutes or CBAs) makes firing a teacher prohibitively expensive and time consuming.

Notwithstanding your assertion that they have no blame, the unions are absolutely to blame for intentionally creating a system where firing a teacher is next to impossible. Your assertion that this system "benefits the employer" is laughable - if that was the case why would the Unions be fighting any and all reforms to the current system?

Moreover, there has been extensive reporting on the lengthy time period and extremely high cost of firing teachers. The procedural roadblocks and attorneys fees create a strong disincentive to even try. "California has more than 1,000 school districts and 300,000 teachers, yet only 667 dismissal cases were filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings between January 2003 and March 2012, according to the Los Angeles Unified School District's chief labor and employment counsel, Alex Molina" (see linked CC Times article below). By any measure, this is not a system that benefits the employer, unless you believe that less than .3% (yes, less than 3/10ths of one percent) of teachers deserve to be fired.

Even in the rare circumstance a district does try to fire a teacher, the review "commissions", stacked by the Unions and their political cronies, often fail to fire teachers even in extreme circumstances (such as a teacher found with porn, pot, and coke at school).

So the issue isn't due process. The issue is that the process has become so expensive and time consuming, that it is almost impossible to fire a teacher even for just cause. The problem is so bad, that in NY, they are simply paying teachers not to teach, rather than firing them.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/03/local/me-teachers3

http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_22454532/firing-tenured-teacher-california-can-be-tough

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/22/new-york-teachers-paid-to_n_219336.html

---

Yes, the issue is due process, or the lack thereof..I wonder how many of the 150 teachers sitting idly in the LAUSD "Teacher Jail" daily, awaiting their cases (and yes, being paid) had their due process completely botched, by both the administration, and the school district??

I have been privy to at least a half dozen cases involving teachers just at my school. I followed them closely. The length (and the cost) of each case was very much based on the sloppy and error-prone evidence gathering and poorly collected data by the administration (in each case, the principal, followed up by the district lawyers).

In each case, the teacher, along with the union, used this sloppy evidence gathering in prolonging the cases. One recent case, took nearly 2 years and the teacher ended up winning. Many if not all of us teachers, were disappointed. The administration did not seem to do fully understand the due process procedure, and the teacher got off. Pity and I blame the district completely. They were so poorly prepared just before the teacher was laid off, they created some harrassment issues that the teacher could also use. Pathetic.

Add to this the notion that schools don't like to be known to have "bad" teachers. It reflects on the principal, the school, and the community. Breaking the law is one thing, but the incompetent teacher - Mr. Ditto - often escapes because he gets no complaints. Some poor and under-funded schools are so desperate for teachers, they will consider anyone with a credential. Several years ago Berkeley HS opened their doors with nearly 20 subsitutes since they couldn't fill their staff with permanent teachers.

And it's the school districts who place teachers in classes out of their college majors, or with emergency teaching credentials. Here, want a contract? Teach geometry, there isn't anyone else.

I still stick with my claim that poor management is truly the real issue. Some of us WISH and hope for administrators who aren't there simply because of a district need for a balancing act..or have simply been promoted because of years of service. Who evaluates THEM anyway?? Oh, the unions do, but who listens to them?