In a suit filed by students, a California judge (albeit from a county court) has declared that teacher tenure violates the provisions of Brown v Board of Education "separate but equal" ruling, writing that the laws in this case "impose a real and appreciable impact on the students' fundamental right to equality of education."

Oh the humanity.

Link

Good news, but I wonder if it matters much, as CA will soon be overrun w/ immigrants.

It will have ramifications across the country. The same groups who pushed it there will push the same lawsuit lineage in other states.


Times they are a changing.

It's taken me a long time to come to grips with it, but I've finally realized that California is (basically) a foreign country to me, and when I read about things happening there, it's like reading about things happening in China or Canada or the Middle East.

(06-11-2014 07:23 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Good news, but I wonder if it matters much, as CA will soon be overrun w/ immigrants.

Meh, the last time I saw a ranking of the states when it comes to public education, I think CA was 49th.

The whole system needs a revamp and this is simply a start to the process.

Adios unions. Don't let the door hit you in the a$$ on your way out.

He looks just like you would imagine him to.

Alex Caputo-Pearl, president elect of United Teachers Los Angeles, takes questions on about the verdict of the Vergara v. California lawsuit in Los Angeles Tuesday, June 10, 2014. A judge struck down tenure and other job protections for California's public school teachers as unconstitutional Tuesday, saying such laws harm students, especially poor and minority ones, by saddling them with bad teachers. Photo: Damian Dovarganes, AP

Why k-12 teachers need tenure is beyond me.

Tenure is supposed to protect academic freedom. Too often it is used to protect people who are incompetent or have simply retired on the job. If you are unwilling or unable to do the job at a minimally acceptable level, find another job.

(06-11-2014 12:45 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Tenure is supposed to protect academic freedom. Too often it is used to protect people who are incompetent or have simply retired on the job. If you are unwilling or unable to do the job at a minimally acceptable level, find another job.

Yeah, I understand it at the university level for people who do research, publish, etc. but why does a first grade teacher need that protection?

(06-11-2014 12:58 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 12:45 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Tenure is supposed to protect academic freedom. Too often it is used to protect people who are incompetent or have simply retired on the job. If you are unwilling or unable to do the job at a minimally acceptable level, find another job.

Yeah, I understand it at the university level for people who do research, publish, etc. but why does a first grade teacher need that protection?

It depends on the definition of tenure in a given situation. If tenure in California means that incompetent teachers can't be dismissed then it is understandable that it needs to go. However, the term tenure is sometimes used (misused) as shorthand for the terms "career status" or "due process". There is a reasonable need and expectation for tenure in the due process or career status sense.

(06-11-2014 01:44 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  It depends on the definition of tenure in a given situation. If tenure in California means that incompetent teachers can't be dismissed then it is understandable that it needs to go. However, the term tenure is sometimes used (misused) as shorthand for the terms "career status" or "due process". There is a reasonable need and expectation for tenure in the due process or career status sense.

dawg has a good point. That's the way tenure is used in Virginia. It's essentially a term for 'continuing contact' meaning that a teacher can't be fired without cause - it's basically due process. Still, there needs to better way to get rid of bad teachers.

Also, the judge in CA makes a good point: minorities and poorer areas are often beleaguered with these bad, unfireable teachers. Good teachers make smart choices and move to places where they can get paid more - which is where the property values are high. Plus, the parents are more active in these higher class areas and so ineffective teachers are run out of town.

(06-11-2014 07:23 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Good news, but I wonder if it matters much, as CA will soon be overrun w/ immigrants.

?

(06-11-2014 02:01 PM)Murray007 Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 01:44 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  It depends on the definition of tenure in a given situation. If tenure in California means that incompetent teachers can't be dismissed then it is understandable that it needs to go. However, the term tenure is sometimes used (misused) as shorthand for the terms "career status" or "due process". There is a reasonable need and expectation for tenure in the due process or career status sense.

dawg has a good point. That's the way tenure is used in Virginia. It's essentially a term for 'continuing contact' meaning that a teacher can't be fired without cause - it's basically due process. Still, there needs to better way to get rid of bad teachers.

Also, the judge in CA makes a good point: minorities and poorer areas are often beleaguered with these bad, unfireable teachers. Good teachers make smart choices and move to places where they can get paid more - which is where the property values are high. Plus, the parents are more active in these higher class areas and so ineffective teachers are run out of town.

Here in NC there are 14 different grounds for dismissal. Most of the time the process doesn't run the entire course because bad teachers see the handwriting on the wall and resign.

Having career status (it takes five years to get it, and it doesn't transfer from one system to the other) protects teachers from arbitrary firing. If I am a politically active Democrat and the principal is a stanch Republican he can't just let me go because he doesn't like my politics. If I make 55k a year and a new teacher only makes 30k I'm not in danger of being let go based on that. If the Superintendent's cousin's son just graduated from ECU with an education degree they can't send me home to create an opening for the kid. If the state wants to reduce the number of pensioners they can't let a bunch of us go just before we get our 30 years in to cut costs. If a group of parents decide they don't like me as a teacher they can't just demand they get rid of me and I am gone.

Without career status teachers will be subject to terminating contracts, that would usually run from one to four years. In that case they don't have to fire me. They just don't offer me a new contract for the new year. Career status is both compensation for low pay and a reward for loyalty. It is important to remove ineffective teachers, but it is also important to offer incentives for the effective teachers in the hope that they will provide their services for many years, thus insuring stability within the district. A stable, consistent workforce produces positive results for our students. Constant fear for one's job and the resulting high turnover it creates is a recipe for under performance by both teachers and students.