Was reading this article, and wondered if it extends up the public educational system to the UC level with tenured professors?

It's about time

UCBerkGrad;842323611 said:

---

It's about time

---

Only applies to K-12. They plaintiffs proved there are some ugly practices that don't happen at the college level, like sending incompetent tenured teachers to low income schools. Not my area of legal expertise, but my amateur view is this case will not be overturned.

The National Review, a Bush Solicitor General, some Silicon Valley Billionaire, and the Obama administration all backed the plaintiffs. Interesting quote from liberal Rep. Miller. The teachers unions really seems to have made enemies on both sides of the aisle.

Well ... It is about time. I could be let go from my job at any time. My wife has been a public school teacher in Texas for many years and every year she signs a ONE YEAR CONTRACT. Period. She commits to no more and the District commits to no more.

It's as it should be...

wifeisafurd;842323639 said:

---

Only applies to K-12. They plaintiffs proved there are some ugly practices that don't happen at the college level, like sending incompetent tenured teachers to low income schools. Not my area of legal expertise, but my amateur view is this case will not be overturned.

The National Review, a Bush Solicitor General, some Silicon Valley Billionaire, and the Obama administration all backed the plaintiffs. Interesting quote from liberal Rep. Miller. The teachers unions really seems to have made enemies on both sides of the aisle.

---

The Obama administration isn't liberal it's corporatists.

Obama like all Third way democrats believe in a corporate for profit education system.

This is big time and it'll eventually wind up in the Supreme Court.

Wow- some of you really lack perspective on the union movement - is this a Furd blog?

I agree that the policy of assigning lemon teachers to failing schools should be stopped, but I also think we get what we pays for...and we pay low wages to teachers.

Check out Nike factories in Bangladesh, Indonesia and China if you don't like unions.

XXXBEAR;842323654 said:

---

Wow- some of you really lack perspective on the union movement - is this a Furd blog?

I agree that the policy of assigning lemon teachers to failing schools should be stopped, but I also think we get what we pays for...and we pay low wages to teachers.

Check out Nike factories in Bangladesh, Indonesia and China if you don't like unions.

---

Many people have forgotten that unions brought us: the 40-hour work week, week ends, a prosperous middle class, the most prosperous and egalitarian period of American History, and the so called Greatest Generation.

Corporatist would have the US go back to the Gilded Age when capitalists controlled business, state local and federal politics, and all aspects of public life. Graft was rife. And the life of the common man and woman was cheap.

This board is full of know-it-alls who just happen to know-it-all differently.

Now Christian school boards can fire teachers if they teach evolution, or anything else they don't believe. Conservative, Christian activists have been successful in taking control of local school boards. For them this has to seem like they have won the war against dreaded liberal education.
A good friend (and Cal grad) became a biology teacher in a very rich, conservative school district. Forty years there was a lot of anti-evolution pressure on science teachers, whose only protection was tenure. Without tenure, science teachers who defy their conservative masters will be soon gone.
And students in those districts will be inadequately prepared to compete with the world in math and science. Until now the public schools were some of the last ramparts holding back the new age of Creationism. Without tenure, expect teacher terminations to be for a variety of reasons, most unrelated to competence.

sp4149;842323685 said:

---

Without tenure, expect teacher terminations to be for a variety of reasons, most unrelated to competence.

---

Absolutely unbelieveable that anyone believes competence would not be a significant factor in teacher employment/terminations! :headbang

UCBerkGrad;842323611 said:

---

It's about time

---

:bravo :bravo :bravo Absolutely! Long overdue.

XXXBEAR;842323654 said:

---

Wow- some of you really lack perspective on the union movement - is this a Furd blog?

I agree that the policy of assigning lemon teachers to failing schools should be stopped, but I also think we get what we pays for...and we pay low wages to teachers.

Check out Nike factories in Bangladesh, Indonesia and China if you don't like unions.

---

Well they fvcked up with those practices, now they're paying the price.

What's anything you said have to do with teachers getting lifetime jobs without fear of getting terminated?

txwharfrat;842323641 said:

---

Well ... It is about time. I could be let go from my job at any time. My wife has been a public school teacher in Texas for many years and every year she signs a ONE YEAR CONTRACT. Period. She commits to no more and the District commits to no more.

It's as it should be...

---

I can do better than that. At UC Berkeley Extension, instructors are hired with one semester contracts.

Tenureship, like rent control, shouldn't be for a lifetime. I'd support five or seven year increments, where after that period, teachers are reviewed and evaluated for another term. Much like an athlete's contract.

Rent control should be the same. After the term is up, landlords may raise the rent a certain percentage - maybe not to market rate, but definitely much higher than allowed now, perhaps like 20%.

sp4149;842323685 said:

---

Now Christian school boards can fire teachers if they teach evolution, or anything else they don't believe. Conservative, Christian activists have been successful in taking control of local school boards. For them this has to seem like they have won the war against dreaded liberal education.
A good friend (and Cal grad) became a biology teacher in a very rich, conservative school district. Forty years there was a lot of anti-evolution pressure on science teachers, whose only protection was tenure. Without tenure, science teachers who defy their conservative masters will be soon gone.
And students in those districts will be inadequately prepared to compete with the world in math and science. Until now the public schools were some of the last ramparts holding back the new age of Creationism. Without tenure, expect teacher terminations to be for a variety of reasons, most unrelated to competence.

---

And they deserve the education that they get. Why force it down them?

1. This lawsuit was brought by Venture Capitalist David Welch and former Washington DC school superintendent Michelle Rhee, both of whom have financial ties to the Charter School industry.

2. Ted Olson, a megalomaniac attorney, helped argue for the plaintiffs.

3. I've never seen a judicial decision bold/add emphasis to the wording of analysis, and Superior Court Judge Treu does it several times. Vergara v. California.. Nor have I seen so many typos in a judicial decision, especially one of public importance.

4.I have never seen a court decision use such superlative language.

5. Nor have I ever seen a Superior Court Judge cite to the Federalist Papers in their conclusion.

5. Upon reading the decision (Vergara v. California.) it seems to rely heavily upon Economic "junk science," particularly a study (written by a 31 year old Harvard economist named Raj Chetty) entitled THE LONG-TERM IMPACTS OF TEACHERS: TEACHER VALUE-ADDED AND STUDENT OUTCOMES IN ADULTHOOD, calling it a massive study but whose conclusions are laughable.

6. And finally, the court's decision seems pegged upon Dr. Chetty's claim that "a single year in a classroom with a grossly ineffective teacher costs students $1.4 million in lifetime earnings per classroom," (I doubt anything like that could be accurately quantified, and I read Dr. Chetty's study) or that "students in LAUSD who are taught by a teacher in the bottom 5% of competence lose 9.54 months of learning in a single year compared with students with average teachers," (what does that even mean? how do you quantify that? Can a student lose 9 months of learning in a 9 month school year?).

This judge obviously has little sense, and more importantly doesn't know how to read studies or do very basic math.

If K-12 teachers had to go through the same graduate training (5-10 years) and the same lengthy and arduous tenure review process as college professors, then I would have no problem with them receiving the same tenure protections.

But they don't. So I see no reason why their protections should be nearly identical.

93gobears;842323726 said:

---

1. This lawsuit was brought by Venture Capitalist David Welch and former Washington DC school superintendent Michelle Rhee, both of whom have financial ties to the Charter School industry.

2. Ted Olson, a megalomaniac attorney, helped argue for the plaintiffs.

3. I've never seen a judicial decision bold/add emphasis to the wording of analysis, and Superior Court Judge Treu does it several times. Vergara v. California.. Nor have I seen so many typos in a judicial decision, especially one of public importance.

4.I have never seen a court decision use such superlative language.

5. Nor have I ever seen a Superior Court Judge cite to the Federalist Papers in their conclusion.

5. Upon reading the decision (Vergara v. California.) it seems to rely heavily upon Economic "junk science," particularly a study (written by a 31 year old Harvard economist named Raj Chetty) entitled THE LONG-TERM IMPACTS OF TEACHERS: TEACHER VALUE-ADDED AND STUDENT OUTCOMES IN ADULTHOOD, calling it a massive study but whose conclusions are laughable.

6. And finally, the court's decision seems pegged upon Dr. Chetty's claim that "a single year in a classroom with a grossly ineffective teacher costs students $1.4 million in lifetime earnings per classroom," (I doubt anything like that could be accurately quantified, and I read Dr. Chetty's study) or that "students in LAUSD who are taught by a teacher in the bottom 5% of competence lose 9.54 months of learning in a single year compared with students with average teachers," (what does that even mean? how do you quantify that? Can a student lose 9 months of learning in a 9 month school year?).

This judge obviously has little sense, and more importantly doesn't know how to read studies or do very basic math.

---

1. So what? Charter schools exist primarily because of the stranglehold teachers unions have on public schools. Charter schools can fire bad teachers and, guess what? Charter Schools out perform publics for less money.

2. So what? What difference does it make who the lead lawyer is? Should we assume the cause/decision is bad just because you don't like the lawyer. And FWIW, Ted Olson also argued the CA Prop 8/gay rights case. Did you disparage that result because he was involved?

3. So what? A decision is bad because it has typos and bold type? You can't attack the legal reasoning, so you attack the spelling? And for the record, it is a tentative decision, not a published opinion (so far). Typos are not that unusual. In the words of our former secretary of state, what difference does that make?

4. You apparently don't read many opinions. The Prop 8 case had very similar tone and grandiose language - I would argue even more. Read a dissent by Justice Scalia. Judges do that all the time.

5. Studies you disagree with are "junk science." Judges use social science studies all the time - particularly in discrimination or disparate impact cases. Again, the Prop 8 case is a good example - lots of social studies in that case quantifying "stigma", etc. Can these studies be disputed? Sure. But they are not "junk" simply because you say they are. The court held a trial and relied on the authorities it found convincing - the studies were only PART of the evidence.

6. Do you deny that LA schools are failing, that a factor in that failure is bad teachers, and that the cost of firing poor teachers (or worse, the "educational cost of keeping them) is a burden to the students? You have failed to articulate why k-12 teachers need the protections afforded by tenure. Teachers are entitled to due process, but that due process cannot be a bar to firing bad teachers (as it currently is for all intents and purposes). I have children in the public schools, and I have seen good young teachers fired while older, burned out, poor teachers are retained - solely because of tenure and collective bargaining. That type of dynamic has to stop.

XXXBEAR;842323654 said:

---

Wow- some of you really lack perspective on the union movement - is this a Furd blog?

I agree that the policy of assigning lemon teachers to failing schools should be stopped, but I also think we get what we pays for...and we pay low wages to teachers.

Check out Nike factories in Bangladesh, Indonesia and China if you don't like unions.

---

This is a long overdue backlash on teacher unions and I'm surprised that these excesses have been tolerated this long. Remember this gem from the CA Federation of Teachers?



Ironic that the narrator (Ed Asner) hasn't produced anything noteworthy in 20 years but is still worth $1.5 million...

I spent a couple of years investigating workers' compensation insurance fraud at LAUSD. It was one of the worst clients that I ever dealt with in regard to w/c fraud and this was largely a result of union interference/involvement. The work force, composed mostly of unionized teachers, was so entrenched in a culture of political correctness and entitlement, that fraud often wasn't viewed in a criminal context. Don't like your boss? Allege that you're experiencing back pain. Get caught faking your physical injury? Fake a psychological one. This is greatly encouraged and exacerbated by the union.

I was also a substitute teacher at a charter school a few years ago and it felt like....just about any other job I ever did. I did a good job and was given frequent assignments while those putting in less effort got less work.

Lawyers don't "get" tenure. They earn the trust of clients who pay them. And lawyers do this every month they practice. No clients? No money and no work. Poor performers at most jobs are replaced. If you can't pay yourself or be self employed, why are you entitled to tenure? There is no compelling reason for tenure for anyone.

93gobears;842323726 said:

---

1. This lawsuit was brought by Venture Capitalist David Welch and former Washington DC school superintendent Michelle Rhee, both of whom have financial ties to the Charter School industry.

2. Ted Olson, a megalomaniac attorney, helped argue for the plaintiffs.

3. I've never seen a judicial decision bold/add emphasis to the wording of analysis, and Superior Court Judge Treu does it several times. Vergara v. California.. Nor have I seen so many typos in a judicial decision, especially one of public importance.

4.I have never seen a court decision use such superlative language.

5. Nor have I ever seen a Superior Court Judge cite to the Federalist Papers in their conclusion.

5. Upon reading the decision (Vergara v. California.) it seems to rely heavily upon Economic "junk science," particularly a study (written by a 31 year old Harvard economist named Raj Chetty) entitled THE LONG-TERM IMPACTS OF TEACHERS: TEACHER VALUE-ADDED AND STUDENT OUTCOMES IN ADULTHOOD, calling it a massive study but whose conclusions are laughable.

6. And finally, the court's decision seems pegged upon Dr. Chetty's claim that "a single year in a classroom with a grossly ineffective teacher costs students $1.4 million in lifetime earnings per classroom," (I doubt anything like that could be accurately quantified, and I read Dr. Chetty's study) or that "students in LAUSD who are taught by a teacher in the bottom 5% of competence lose 9.54 months of learning in a single year compared with students with average teachers," (what does that even mean? how do you quantify that? Can a student lose 9 months of learning in a 9 month school year?).

This judge obviously has little sense, and more importantly doesn't know how to read studies or do very basic math.

---

and for that matter the support this decision is getting in democratic quarters. I though the language in the case was overly harsh and not needed to convey how offended the judge was by the practices of the union and school districts. But you need to read more supreme court cases if you don't think studies are relied on by the courts without much understanding to justify decisions (go read the integration cases) or read some dissents for superlative language, or that Federalist papers are not quoted all the time by USSC justices from all different philosophical perspectives. And you just wrong on bolding and captions. Its all the rage. Only the USSC drops the most important stuff in footnotes (e.g., footnote four to Carolene Products, Inc., and if you don't know this, you should fire your Con Law professor). But the USSC can do that, since there is no appeal.

I assume the megalomaniac moniker is because Olson was lead counsel (with David Bois) in overturning the gay marriage ban in California and much of the nation, despite his Republican background now argues many "liberal causes", and is now the sweetheart of MSNBC (in one show, his arguments drove Maddow to tears where she called him the best constitutional lawyer in the country). You may view him as a turn coat or self-aggrandizing for appearing on TV, bur he is selling the law school where he is the Dean and improving their rankings (its not like other law school Dean's are not out in the media), and anyone who practices law seriously knows he is a sensational appellate lawyer. In SoCal we are bombarded by media whore Erwin Cherminsky all the time, and the only practical thing I think he is done is help pass the worst governance laws (called charter reform) ever used by a city (LA), where for example any meaningful decisions takes years to make. At least Olson probably has argued more meaningful cases before the USSC than any other attorney living.

93gobears;842323726 said:

---

1. This lawsuit was brought by Venture Capitalist David Welch and former Washington DC school superintendent Michelle Rhee, both of whom have financial ties to the Charter School industry.

2. Ted Olson, a megalomaniac attorney, helped argue for the plaintiffs.

3. I've never seen a judicial decision bold/add emphasis to the wording of analysis, and Superior Court Judge Treu does it several times. Vergara v. California.. Nor have I seen so many typos in a judicial decision, especially one of public importance.

4.I have never seen a court decision use such superlative language.

5. Nor have I ever seen a Superior Court Judge cite to the Federalist Papers in their conclusion.

5. Upon reading the decision (Vergara v. California.) it seems to rely heavily upon Economic "junk science," particularly a study (written by a 31 year old Harvard economist named Raj Chetty) entitled THE LONG-TERM IMPACTS OF TEACHERS: TEACHER VALUE-ADDED AND STUDENT OUTCOMES IN ADULTHOOD, calling it a massive study but whose conclusions are laughable.

6. And finally, the court's decision seems pegged upon Dr. Chetty's claim that "a single year in a classroom with a grossly ineffective teacher costs students $1.4 million in lifetime earnings per classroom," (I doubt anything like that could be accurately quantified, and I read Dr. Chetty's study) or that "students in LAUSD who are taught by a teacher in the bottom 5% of competence lose 9.54 months of learning in a single year compared with students with average teachers," (what does that even mean? how do you quantify that? Can a student lose 9 months of learning in a 9 month school year?).

This judge obviously has little sense, and more importantly doesn't know how to read studies or do very basic math.

---

Wall ST has been trying to turn public schools from being non-profit into for profit institutions for quite some time now, Bill Gates has his mitts in this arena too.

Kevin Johnson's wife (Michelle Rhee) is a piece of work.One thing the public has no idea about is that there is very little day light between corporate third way dems and republicans.

http://www.thirdway.org/

CalBearsWinNC;842323796 said:

---

Wall ST has been trying to turn public schools from being non-profit into for profit institutions for quite some time now, Bill Gates has his mitts in this arena too.

Kevin Johnson's wife (Michelle Rhee) is a piece of work.One thing the public has no idea about is that there is very little day light between corporate third way dems and republicans.

http://www.thirdway.org/

---

Zuckerberg and Cory Booker as well with the Newark fiasco

GB54;842323802 said:

---

Zuckerberg and Cory Booker as well with the Newark fiasco

---

Isn't it amazing how little $100 million can accomplish these days?

HaasBear04;842323820 said:

---

Isn't it amazing how little $100 million can accomplish these days?

---

It did get a "like" from Cory Booker on Facebook

Speaking of Ted Olson, here he is at his alma mater: http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/Lawyers-David-Boies-Ted-Olson-inspire-UC-5468532.php

CALiforniALUM;842323602 said:

---

Was reading this article, and wondered if it extends up the public educational system to the UC level with tenured professors?

---

Ran the case by a labor attorney who represents a few large school districts, and is lead outside counsel for UCLA on unlawful termination cases. His view, after reading the decision over many times, is: (1) it doesn't apply to the college level, (2) that there may less application outside California, and (3) that most unlawful termination cases will continue. Brief explanations for (2) and (3). This was a discrimination case essentially, and many of the discriminatory practices do not occur outside California, even where there are strong tenure practices for teachers. The other aspect is California provides employees in general, and teaches specifically, broad rights against wrongful termination due to discrimination, whistle blowing, violations of the civil rights including first amendment rights on what to teach, and on and on. I specifically asked him about firing the public school teacher who only teaches evolution, and he said he would advise the school district to settle quickly.

The commentary I got back was a lot more technical, so for you lawyers, appreciate this is an overview.

CalBearsWinNC;842323796 said:

---

Wall ST has been trying to turn public schools from being non-profit into for profit institutions for quite some time now, Bill Gates has his mitts in this arena too.

Kevin Johnson's wife (Michelle Rhee) is a piece of work.One thing the public has no idea about is that there is very little day light between corporate third way dems and republicans.

http://www.thirdway.org/

---

Corporations and VCs are targeting public education and its $1.3 TRILLION US market. Instead of life long teachers making modest livings, these guys want to pull a profit off the taxpayers backs. Charter schools are the first wave attempt at dismantling public education.

sp4149;842323685 said:

---

Now Christian school boards can fire teachers if they teach evolution, or anything else they don't believe. Conservative, Christian activists have been successful in taking control of local school boards. For them this has to seem like they have won the war against dreaded liberal education.
A good friend (and Cal grad) became a biology teacher in a very rich, conservative school district. Forty years there was a lot of anti-evolution pressure on science teachers, whose only protection was tenure. Without tenure, science teachers who defy their conservative masters will be soon gone.
And students in those districts will be inadequately prepared to compete with the world in math and science. Until now the public schools were some of the last ramparts holding back the new age of Creationism. Without tenure, expect teacher terminations to be for a variety of reasons, most unrelated to competence.

---

My expert friend does not think this case speaks to this type of situation, and that the terminated teacher would not be suing under tenure laws, but under other statues and would win (see my above comment).

I live in a very rich, conservative area which has its own public school district. It recently disciplined a high school science teacher (letter to file), for what she claims was spending 10% of her time discussing global warming studies that questioned the size or impacts of global warming (the other 90% were materials that said global warming was a huge threat). She has sued saying she was trying to be balanced, and should not be disciplined. Thoughts?

As a follow-up: Our area is seeing a burgeoning Asian population (Asian professionals who typically are second generation or more) which has meant re-opening a second high school. The existing one, is now being changed to a science-math oriented high school where the best math science teachers are being kept. It also is the school to send your aspiring athlete and is a feeder school in football and the country club sports to D1(in fact, Tedford recruited many line players from this school). The demographics of the school are beginning to look a lot like Berkeley, and the school is now becoming known for studious Asian kids and jocks. The other school is supposed to be focused on arts and humanities, and the school district has purportedly moved its best teachers in those areas over, as well the worst science and math teaches. And it certainly didn't move any good coaches. Its known in the community as a school primarily for white kids who don't play sports. Does any of this bother you?

I think this case falls under the heading of "hard cases make bad law." There is no question that tenure rules in California have resulted in egregious problems with estimates of up to $300,000 to fire an incompetent teacher, and precisely the kinds of discriminatory practices cited in the decision. For instance, my sons went to a top-rated public school in a district that was largely made up of inner city schools. No teacher in our school had fewer than 15 years experience and were hand-picked by the principal; by contrast, in the two poorest schools in the district, the average experience was around 3 years, and many more experienced teachers who were just putting in time were eventually transferred there.

OTOH, getting rid of tenure may be a case of throwing out the baby with the bath. I liken it to college sports. Everyone agrees (or at least most everyone) that the NCAA is corrupt and that the rules that govern college athletics are byzantine and illogical. Eliminating the NCAA entirely, and turning athletes into professionals for whom universities would bid (as do NFL or MLB teams) would not necessarily be the solution. It seems to me that some form of tenure (e.g., rolling 5-year contracts; tenure after a longer term probationary period, with specific rules making it much easier to fire for incompetence, changing seniority rules so that length of tenure didn't give preferences in terms of school assignments, etc.) is preferable to eliminating protections altogether. Likening the job of teachers to that of fast food workers, or corporate CEO's is a poor analogy, because it is too easy to force teachers to conform to ideological standards with the threat of termination. There are school districts that are actually trying to force the teaching of creationism in lieu of science in biology classes (admittedly, not in California). Saying that "they get what they deserve," isn't fair to the children who don't have a choice about living in a know-nothing district. At least some form of tenure gives some insulation to teachers who might otherwise be terminated for not being fundamentalist enough.

OneTopOneChickenApple;842323710 said:

---

...I'd support five or seven year increments, where after that period, teachers are reviewed and evaluated for another term. ...

---

I've advocated for a two year term.
"Passing" evaluation merits an extension.
"Bad" evaluation and the second year becomes probationary ... improve or bye bye.

SonOfCalVa;842323848 said:

---

I've advocated for a two year term.
"Passing" evaluation merits an extension.
"Bad" evaluation and the second year becomes probationary ... improve or bye bye.

---

Two years is not a good sample size. It takes a teacher, especially a first-year instructor, at least a year to work out the kinks in a class as some courses are only offered once a year.

I have read evaluations of teachers from students and you can definitely see great improvement after teaching the course a couple of times. This is much like athletes improving greatly after their sophomore years.

Also, teachers can get a bad or unreasonable group of students for a particular semester.

I've always felt like teachers should earn more. They should earn so much that people actually COMPETE for positions. This will ensure our kids are getting the best education possible.

I mean, if anyone is going to get overpaid, it might as well be teachers. Makes a lot more sense than most the other occupations rolling in dough.

FrankBear21;842323869 said:

---

I've always felt like teachers should earn more. They should earn so much that people actually COMPETE for positions. This will ensure our kids are getting the best education possible.

I mean, if anyone is going to get overpaid, it might as well be teachers. Makes a lot more sense than most the other occupations rolling in dough.

---

I have no problem with your point. Your point does not support tenure.