http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/opinion/robbins-california-teachers-tenure/index.html?iref=allsearch 

The court ruled that in CA that the tenure law makes it too difficult to remove an ineffective teacher, and that because the bad teachers tended to get sent to the poorer districts, poor and minority students were suffering an unequal education because the convoluted tenure situation makes it nearly impossible to replace them.

In addition, the court ruled that it unfairly hindered new teachers who might be better from getting hired because there was no room for them in the system.

I happen to agree with this decision. I also have issues with government pensions in my state (IL) which is further exacerbated by the fact that a crappy teacher is still in for life and THEN gets an obscene pension plan.

(The imbalance of funding schools through property taxes is another issue).

When I first heard this story, since my bias was to agree with the court I was trying to hear what the teachers and their supporters had to say on this issue and they had no specifics at all: "It will hurt the students" or "It's anti-education". Yet not a valid point in the lot.

First, if that were an answer on an essay, they'd get an F. No wonder they need tenure.

Second, I would really (honestly) like to hear what the basis for a tenure law is in the first place. I can't conceive of what reall reason there is to have one other than protecting teachers who, through union rules, are the higher paid ones. Most states have to grant tenure after 3 years...hardly proof of long term success (it is currently 2 years in CA).

I say shitcan the tenure system and let teachers deal with the threat of having to occasionally find a new job like anyone else.

---

good news

---

I'm interested to hear our poetry teacher's opinion on this matter.

Oh yeah, Texas is a dumbass! Experiment successful Ol Hoss.

This topic is kind of dumb without adding the FACT, that right wing politicians are in an all out war against budgets for schools across America. Anything to cut the tax bill to feed the greed. Who in the hell would actually want to be a teacher in this country right now. You have unintellectual tea people challenging anything you do, and taking their children out of school to "home school" them.

---

The two issues are mutually exclusive. Not that the one isn't the source for the other, but that's irrelevant.

To me, the issue is that tenure has been shown in CA, at least, to be unfairly and adversely impacting the people most in need of having opportunities created for them.

But even given my biases for education and against tenure, I would like to hear actual reasoning in its favor. If your argument is that the Right wants to crush teachers' unions, that may be a fact but it still doesn't justify tenure.

Take the pension system in IL. The reason it is so favorable is because the state can't pay teachers what it thinks they deserve, so they make up for it by giving them an outrageous fixed pension. I don't agree with that policy but at least there is a valid argument there. I just haven't heard one for tenure, and the combination of tenure and a ridiculous pension means that a crappy teacher is set for life.

---

Well, your experiment went exactly like I predicted - my prediction came before that attempted thread destruction, but I hadn't seen it until later. I hope you realize, the WHO is literally ALWAYS the same.

As for your thread, I have to ask, is that the best you could do? It's kinda a snoozer.

I guess I tend to be against tenure, although I never really thought about it. It allows a bunch of pampered and arrogant professors basically get away with a lot of crap in the realm of teaching, and probably not even limited to that. If I read your words correctly, you favor plenty of spending for education in general? I haven't really ever formed a strong opinion on that either, but my gut feeling is it's mostly bad - as nowadays, teaching is mostly bad - both in terms of disgusting takes on issues AND in terms of shoddy results in the basic factual subjects - math, etc.

Probably, though, this thread would/will die of natural causes - no need for the evil one to kill it.

---

I have to admit there are more contentious issues, Maybe in this case even people more left than I am have a hard time rationalizing tenure.

---

Er, does this refer to me?

As to what I think:

I looked at the ruling. The ruling is one of interpretation of the California state constitution, not the US Constitution. Since I have no knowledge of, nor interest in, what the constitution of the land of fruits and nuts is, I can't comment on whether the ruling is consistent with or correct in its interpretation of said state constitution.


As for the institution of tenure, I have several thoughts:

1. I'm glad I have it. This is pure self-interest on my part. Given the emphasis my institution places upon student end-of-term evaluations, I have little doubt that mine would lead to my replacement.

2. With respect to private schools, I think it's a matter of contractual choice. If a school wants to give tenure, it should be able to; if a teacher wants to insist on tenure as a part of the contract, the teacher should be able to do so.

3. I think that tenure is a big reason why many institutions are going to be unable to innovate sufficiently to weather the current changes in higher ed. "Faculty governance" typically gives more power to senior faculty naturally, and tenure only exacerbates that.

4. I expect our friend in Montana and many others here will disagree, but I find tenure for public school teachers much more problematic, however, than tenure given under private contracts. Why? Because I don't like the idea of *ANY* public employee having a legal sinecure. If a private employer wants to voluntarily give up his/her ability to terminate an employee at will in exchange for other contractual promises, I have no problem with that. But when you say as a matter of law that a government employee can't be terminated, you are just asking for trouble.
There's a reason that the Founders spoke of rights the way they did in the Bill of Rights. They understood that those acting under the imprimatur of the state had far more power to do harm, more ability to impair the exercise of those fundamental rights, than does any private citizen or private organization. Among the last things they would have wanted would be systematic protection of government agents against criticism and removal from employment.

IMO.

---

Wade and all others in this. I was a tenured teacher for 42 years. To be honest I agree with the California Courts. I taught with some of the finest teachers around...those who made kids think and work to their full potential. And, sadly, I worked with some who were there just for the paycheck and could have gived a crap about the kids. They will certainly deny this, but it's true. But, we see this in every profession. There are those who belong and those who should find another job.

I could go on forever about "teachers" who should have been canned the first day, but somehow reached that magical "3 year" status and now can't be terminated except for felony charges, etc. What a crock of crap.

I did my job.....I followed the cirriculum presented (even threw in some of my own junk); found something nice in every student I had; and took the time to praise each student every day. That was hard being a PE teacher where I saw every kid in the school, but good teachers do this. I tried to connect with each kid I had and I think I succeeded.

The only thing I do worry about is the fact that without some sort of tenure/senority laws, school admisistrators can terminate good teachers within 3 years "just because". Which means that at year 3, they (the school district) can get a first year teacher at a cheaper price and save money and look good to the taxpayers. I started out in Wisconsin in just such a district and they made no bones about what their intentions were. I left after year 2.....went to Sheboygan and taught for 8 years, then was lucky enough to latch on in Missoula for 32 years.

---

You do your job. If you don't do your job, you should get fired. These frigging unions can bastardize the simple concept of why you should get paid, but I personnaly will not. Do your fucking job and stop whining, whether you are a rocket scientist or a ditch-digger. Do it to the best of your ability and your rewards will come. Amazing how much actual work is taken out by these unions.

My uncle was a big shot at Wayne State. He never actually worked, nor did his kids. Do your job until you can't. Simple.

You are not entitled to getting out of work. Work is hard. Entitlement is easy. You are a worthless piece of shit if you opt for the entitlement without seriously good reason. Wow. We have a government that caters to this entire population of worthless motherfuckers.

=d>