If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Education Week)   Judge strikes down California's laws that protect teachers from being fired over things like pregnancy, ethnicity, and insanity (working in low-income schools)   (blogs.edweek.org) divider line 104
    More: Asinine, ethnicity, Theodore B. Olson, Golden State  
•       •       •

3714 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jun 2014 at 5:25 PM (11 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



104 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-10 02:22:22 PM
Nice troll attempt, but there is nothing in there that says ethnicity (Federal Equal Opportunity) or pregnancy (Family Medical Leave Act) are being blocked. Just that the teachers' union is losing a little power protecting crappy teachers.
 
2014-06-10 02:52:18 PM
Tenure is, overall, a good thing, and helps protect teachers from incompetent administrators and crazy parents.

Scrapping the system isn't the way to go, but it wouldn't be a bad thing to find a way to streamline the removal of genuinely bad actors in the teaching community.

The problem is, of course, how do you determine who is genuinely bad in the position vs who is the victim of false accusations, office politics, or unable to do their job effectively due to non-existant or poor administrative support.
 
2014-06-10 03:55:03 PM
This is why I have always been active at my children's schools. It was shockingly easy to see which teachers were awesome and which were on the borderline incompetent or below. Simply asking the principal nicely that my child not have a certain teacher next year went a long way because no principal wants to lose the few parents that are engaged.
 
2014-06-10 05:07:47 PM
Glory, glory hallelujah
Teacher hit me with a ruler
Met her at the door
With a loaded .44
And she ain't my teacher no more.
 
2014-06-10 05:20:25 PM
lol because the skools did it to themselves
 
2014-06-10 05:31:22 PM
This decision violates a teacher's right to not be fired for being bad at their job.
 
2014-06-10 05:32:56 PM
Compensation really needs to be merit based.  Communism just doesn't work.
 
2014-06-10 05:35:20 PM
Pushed by charter school stooges that are happy to take public money and then lie about student results because hey, at least is sounds better.

This will be overturned on appeal, the reasoning was tortured.
 
2014-06-10 05:37:15 PM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Compensation really needs to be merit based.  Communism just doesn't work.


Care to take a stab at what constitutes 'merit' in primary education, secondary education, and higher ed?
 
2014-06-10 05:37:54 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Pushed by charter school stooges that are happy to take public money and then lie about student results because hey, at least is sounds better.

This will be overturned on appeal, the reasoning was tortured.


Some of the charters don't have to lie - they just only take the kids they want to take.  It's pretty easy to produce great test results when you only admit kids with motivated and involved parents.
 
2014-06-10 05:38:02 PM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Compensation really needs to be merit based.  Communism just doesn't work.


Except that teachers don't get to select their students. There isn't a lot a teacher can do with a lazy child with disinterested parents.
 
F42
2014-06-10 05:41:55 PM
Subby: Law protects from racism.

TFA: "The laws in question require teachers to be granted tenure after just two years; compel layoffs to be made on the basis of seniority;"

Subby's dumb.
 
2014-06-10 05:44:19 PM

max_pooper: There isn't a lot a teacher can do with a lazy child with disinterested parents.


Break a foot off in their ass...
 
2014-06-10 05:47:20 PM

everlastinggobstopper: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Compensation really needs to be merit based.  Communism just doesn't work.

Care to take a stab at what constitutes 'merit' in primary education, secondary education, and higher ed?


You have to design standards that work, that are measurable.  Without them, it's a race to the bottom as everybody gets the same pay regardless of performance.  Why work harder than the bare minimum if you never get recognized for it?  Some teachers will teach for the love of it, but if I'm a parent, I'd prefer more concrete incentives.
 
2014-06-10 05:48:34 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Tenure is, overall, a good thing, and helps protect teachers from incompetent administrators and crazy parents.

Scrapping the system isn't the way to go, but it wouldn't be a bad thing to find a way to streamline the removal of genuinely bad actors in the teaching community.

The problem is, of course, how do you determine who is genuinely bad in the position vs who is the victim of false accusations, office politics, or unable to do their job effectively due to non-existant or poor administrative support.


Tenure after 18 months on the job is not a good thing.   5-10 years maybe, but 18 months is an insane extension of a grant of protection to a person who just started their career.
 
2014-06-10 05:49:20 PM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: everlastinggobstopper: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Compensation really needs to be merit based.  Communism just doesn't work.

Care to take a stab at what constitutes 'merit' in primary education, secondary education, and higher ed?

You have to design standards that work, that are measurable.  Without them, it's a race to the bottom as everybody gets the same pay regardless of performance.  Why work harder than the bare minimum if you never get recognized for it?  Some teachers will teach for the love of it, but if I'm a parent, I'd prefer more concrete incentives.



And nobody has been able to come up with a metric that does that.
 
2014-06-10 05:50:52 PM
Vergara v. California

I'd say California has been pretty good to her.

gazztoday.com
 
2014-06-10 05:54:56 PM

Gig103: Nice troll attempt, but there is nothing in there that says ethnicity (Federal Equal Opportunity) or pregnancy (Family Medical Leave Act) are being blocked. Just that the teachers' union is losing a little power protecting crappy teachers.


Or senior teachers who make too much....
 
2014-06-10 05:55:38 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Tenure is, overall, a good thing, and helps protect teachers from incompetent administrators and crazy parents.


I disagree.  Tenure makes it difficult to remove substandard employees from the rolls.  It can even be difficult to remove an employee who has done something to the level of gross incompetence.  And in many school systems, tenure extends to staff other than teachers.

My own experience working at places where it is difficult to fire an employee is quite negative.  Whatever fear there was of the management was tempered by the daily interaction with shiatstains who not only should have been fired long ago, but should have been dragged out back to be repeatedly sodomized by angry bears.

A lot of places have systems that sit somewhere between tenure and at-will employment.  There is a happy middle ground that works, IMHO.
 
2014-06-10 05:57:04 PM
Last time I checked you could still fire a tenured teacher for cause.
 
2014-06-10 06:01:14 PM

Old_Chief_Scott: This is why I have always been active at my children's schools. It was shockingly easy to see which teachers were awesome and which were on the borderline incompetent or below. Simply asking the principal nicely that my child not have a certain teacher next year went a long way because no principal wants to lose the few parents that are engaged.


That's the whole problem.  Those teachers shouldn't be teachers if that happens regularly.  Tenure after a couple years ensures crap teachers have a job for life regardless of their performance.

Tenure in public k-12 schools is downright stupid.  Especially since they already have union protection.
 
2014-06-10 06:02:44 PM

Drewsclue: Last time I checked you could still fire a tenured teacher for cause.


Yeah...google LAUSD "rubber rooms" and you'll see that isn't the case at all....
 
2014-06-10 06:05:40 PM
Yeah, I had some teachers that pretty much ruined "education" for me. fark tenure.
 
2014-06-10 06:09:40 PM

F42: Subby: Law protects from racism.

TFA: "The laws in question require teachers to be granted tenure after just two years; compel layoffs to be made on the basis of seniority;"

Subby's dumb.



He clearly meant señority.
 
2014-06-10 06:10:45 PM
Yeah, let's do all we can to make the job of a teacher more difficult, because it's not like they don't have enough problems already, with being underpaid, overworked, underfunded, and underappreciated.

But the big issue here, in my opinion, is that a constitutional challenge to a state law just succeeded of completely overriding the will of the people based on some fairly specious grounds. Talk about "activist judges" - here's a prime example. If you don't want teachers to have tenure after two years, start a petition, lobby the state house, win an election - you should have to actually convince people of your point, instead of just finding a friendly judge to hear your case.
 
2014-06-10 06:12:17 PM

Dinjiin: TuteTibiImperes: Tenure is, overall, a good thing, and helps protect teachers from incompetent administrators and crazy parents.

I disagree.  Tenure makes it difficult to remove substandard employees from the rolls.  It can even be difficult to remove an employee who has done something to the level of gross incompetence.  And in many school systems, tenure extends to staff other than teachers.

My own experience working at places where it is difficult to fire an employee is quite negative.  Whatever fear there was of the management was tempered by the daily interaction with shiatstains who not only should have been fired long ago, but should have been dragged out back to be repeatedly sodomized by angry bears.

A lot of places have systems that sit somewhere between tenure and at-will employment.  There is a happy middle ground that works, IMHO.


Tenure doesn't mean that someone can't be fired, it just means that cause has to be shown and a process has to be followed that allows the employee a chance to represent his or her case.

It helps balance the power between 'management' (the administration) and 'labor' (the teachers).

Really, all jobs should use similar systems.

If someone is keeping their job who is fully incompetent it just means that the administration is just as incompetent for not taking the time to document the problems, follow the disciplinary roadmap, and complete the tasks they have to complete to remove the teacher.

Tenure isn't some magic wand where a teacher can slap a kid, send a dick pic to the class, drink a 40 on the job and then say 'tenure biatch'.  Bad conduct, including perpetual poor performance, is still grounds for termination.
 
2014-06-10 06:13:13 PM
This will be overturned.
 
2014-06-10 06:14:11 PM
The tenured protections public school teachers have carved out for themselves have gone way too far and had to go.

These tenure protections are so strong that the head of LA Unified School district testified in this trial it costs the district $250,000 to $450,000 in litigation fees to terminate an incompetent tenured teacher (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/10/teachers-tenure -j udge-education/10291991/ ).

One teacher in LA was actually arrested and convicted of feeding kids semen and the school district had to pay him $40K to go away because it was cheaper than letting him exhaust all his legal protections afforded through tenure.  (http://www.scpr.org/blogs/education/2012/02/09/4616/lausd-paid-4000 0-s ettle-case-miramonte-teacher-acc/ )

Tenure makes sense for university professors on the forefront of radical thoughts and ideas, but no third grade public school teacher is in the business of contemplating and exposing radical thought in the classroom.  All of us are subject to the subjective decision making of a boss in some way or another, or at the least, a customer.  That's just life.
 
2014-06-10 06:15:43 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Dinjiin: TuteTibiImperes: Tenure is, overall, a good thing, and helps protect teachers from incompetent administrators and crazy parents.

I disagree.  Tenure makes it difficult to remove substandard employees from the rolls.  It can even be difficult to remove an employee who has done something to the level of gross incompetence.  And in many school systems, tenure extends to staff other than teachers.

My own experience working at places where it is difficult to fire an employee is quite negative.  Whatever fear there was of the management was tempered by the daily interaction with shiatstains who not only should have been fired long ago, but should have been dragged out back to be repeatedly sodomized by angry bears.

A lot of places have systems that sit somewhere between tenure and at-will employment.  There is a happy middle ground that works, IMHO.

Tenure doesn't mean that someone can't be fired, it just means that cause has to be shown and a process has to be followed that allows the employee a chance to represent his or her case.

It helps balance the power between 'management' (the administration) and 'labor' (the teachers).

Really, all jobs should use similar systems.

If someone is keeping their job who is fully incompetent it just means that the administration is just as incompetent for not taking the time to document the problems, follow the disciplinary roadmap, and complete the tasks they have to complete to remove the teacher.

Tenure isn't some magic wand where a teacher can slap a kid, send a dick pic to the class, drink a 40 on the job and then say 'tenure biatch'.  Bad conduct, including perpetual poor performance, is still grounds for termination.


Exactly. Bad teachers should get the boot while protect teachers with due process.

By all means anyone who thinks teaching is a cakewalk is welcome to come on board..
 
2014-06-10 06:22:04 PM
California teacher/union thug/exploiter of the taxpayers here.

Permanent status would be better given after 5 years, as studies show that's where the highest turnover rate is anyway. People figure out quickly whether they're fit for the job or not, and if we give them less reason to hang out, they're more likely to move on.

The "dance of the lemons" is the most vile and annoying thing ever. In a district the size of mine, you get to know who these people are and cringe when they show up at your school.

Seniority-based lay-offs (or in my case, a forced change-of-school) are sad, BUT without a way to definitively say which teacher is "better" I'm fine with it. IF your district doesn't have an alternate way of ranking teachers, it's as good a way as any.

Now, to deciding who is a "better" teacher ---- there are some teachers, often new and full of energy, who engage their students and make everything exciting --- BUT DON'T TEACH A GOD DAMN THING (in relation to the standards and content they are supposed to be delivering), and at the same time there are teachers, often old and a bit tired, who can't keep up the circus act anymore --- but who know their content inside and out and can explain in detail the concepts and understanding necessary for mastering that particular subject.

If you ask a 10-year-old who the "better" teacher is, they aren't exactly in the best position to say, since they judge "better" on a different scale than adults. I've found parents are also frequently misled into believing that the teacher that rolls out the coolest-looking projects at Open House is the "better" teacher. Or the one that always gives in to whatever parents want, whether that's in the best interest of the student or not.  And "better" is different from kid to kid. I know that I'm not a good teacher for certain kinds of kids, but that I'm the best kind of teacher for others (I'm very structured). I trust my colleagues in the grades below me to know what kinds of kids go best with which kinds of teachers, and set us all up with groups that will work well together.

Another reason we went with such seemingly arbitrary lay-off rules is so that administrators could not rig things to get rid of teachers they personally did not like, or who stood up against them for whatever reason. You can take an awesome teacher and turn them into the worst teacher ever if you set things up to fail: give them the lowest kids, throw in a few behavior problems, deny them resources, withhold help in dealing with classroom management, undermine them with parents and the district, and so on. If all of that does not simply run them out, and they outlast the administration's efforts, they still have a job. It makes it a less attractive avenue for harassment if it's not guaranteed to work.

Anyhow. That's my two cents, from inside the belly of the beast.
 
2014-06-10 06:23:19 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Bad conduct, including perpetual poor performance, is still grounds for termination.


And here lies the problem. In the San Diego Unified School District last year the feds offered a $21 million grant if districts would only submit their proposals for teacher evaluations. No one would touch it because it would mean coming up with an evaluation method that is tied to actual performance. And no one, especially not the teacher's union or the school board (it was an election year after all), was about to stir the pot in an attempt to quantify performance.

Oh well, we probably would have had a hard time finding a way to spend $21 million anyway.
 
2014-06-10 06:24:26 PM

Iluvbeer: One teacher in LA was actually arrested and convicted of feeding kids semen and the school district had to pay him $40K to go away because it was cheaper than letting him exhaust all his legal protections afforded through tenure. (http://www.scpr.org/blogs/education/2012/02/09/4616/lausd-paid-4000 0-s ettle-case-miramonte-teacher-acc/ )


www.cavemancircus.com

img.fark.net
 
2014-06-10 06:26:56 PM
this one is easy...
increase the pay for teachers, and get rid of the whole tenure thing. this will ensure a constant supply of teachers who actually PERFORM WHAT THEY"RE PAID TO DO.

No where else do you only need to be employed for a certain time to be almost immune from firing, REGARDLESS OF YOUR JOB PERFORMANCE.
Yes, they should earn more money. Key word here: EARN
 
2014-06-10 06:27:03 PM

weasil: You can take an awesome teacher and turn them into the worst teacher ever if you set things up to fail: give them the lowest kids, throw in a few behavior problems, deny them resources, withhold help in dealing with classroom management, undermine them with parents and the district, and so on. If all of that does not simply run them out, and they outlast the administration's efforts, they still have a job.


Precisely.

And you can keep a very poor teacher on the payroll by giving them the "easy" kids so that they can stick around a few more years and get to that next rung on the retirement ladder. How do you make a fair evaluation system with those sorts of intangibles to deal with?
 
2014-06-10 06:28:12 PM

dpzum1: this one is easy...
increase the pay for teachers, and get rid of the whole tenure thing. this will ensure a constant supply of teachers who actually PERFORM WHAT THEY"RE PAID TO DO.

No where else do you only need to be employed for a certain time to be almost immune from firing, REGARDLESS OF YOUR JOB PERFORMANCE.
Yes, they should earn more money. Key word here: EARN


Oh, right. I forgot about most other union jobs...
 
2014-06-10 06:28:36 PM

TuteTibiImperes: HotWingConspiracy: Pushed by charter school stooges that are happy to take public money and then lie about student results because hey, at least is sounds better.

This will be overturned on appeal, the reasoning was tortured.

Some of the charters don't have to lie - they just only take the kids they want to take.  It's pretty easy to produce great test results when you only admit kids with motivated and involved parents.


Yeah, that's often part of the deal with these schools. I've worked with a few, and they will stress that parental involvement is part of the package. It's not only what makes the students successful, it ensures that the parents don't simply see this charter school as something they can dump the kid at and expect magic.
 
2014-06-10 06:32:35 PM

Iluvbeer: Tenure makes sense for university professors on the forefront of radical thoughts and ideas, but no third grade public school teacher is in the business of contemplating and exposing radical thought in the classroom.


"Radical thought" at that level covers things like doing the job that's actually in your contract and refusing to take on duties outside of it. I know, crazy. Or refusing to rubberstamp your principal's ideas on committees that have teachers AND administrators on them so that both parties can actually be represented. Or complaining to the district when your administration repeatedly sets up situations that are detrimental to the school culture --- like rewarding students with histories of violent behavior instead of disciplining them and/or stopping the behavior.

Teachers and administrators do not always agree. Permanent status gives the protection needed to be able to voice our positions without fear of retribution (at least the kind that can get us fired --- they can still fark with you if they're petty).
 
2014-06-10 06:33:50 PM

weasil: California teacher/union thug/exploiter of the taxpayers here.

Permanent status would be better given after 5 years, as studies show that's where the highest turnover rate is anyway. People figure out quickly whether they're fit for the job or not, and if we give them less reason to hang out, they're more likely to move on.

The "dance of the lemons" is the most vile and annoying thing ever. In a district the size of mine, you get to know who these people are and cringe when they show up at your school.

Seniority-based lay-offs (or in my case, a forced change-of-school) are sad, BUT without a way to definitively say which teacher is "better" I'm fine with it. IF your district doesn't have an alternate way of ranking teachers, it's as good a way as any.

Now, to deciding who is a "better" teacher ---- there are some teachers, often new and full of energy, who engage their students and make everything exciting --- BUT DON'T TEACH A GOD DAMN THING (in relation to the standards and content they are supposed to be delivering), and at the same time there are teachers, often old and a bit tired, who can't keep up the circus act anymore --- but who know their content inside and out and can explain in detail the concepts and understanding necessary for mastering that particular subject.

If you ask a 10-year-old who the "better" teacher is, they aren't exactly in the best position to say, since they judge "better" on a different scale than adults. I've found parents are also frequently misled into believing that the teacher that rolls out the coolest-looking projects at Open House is the "better" teacher. Or the one that always gives in to whatever parents want, whether that's in the best interest of the student or not.  And "better" is different from kid to kid. I know that I'm not a good teacher for certain kinds of kids, but that I'm the best kind of teacher for others (I'm very structured). I trust my colleagues in the grades below me to know what kinds of kids go best with which kinds of teachers, and set us all up with groups that will work well together.

Another reason we went with such seemingly arbitrary lay-off rules is so that administrators could not rig things to get rid of teachers they personally did not like, or who stood up against them for whatever reason. You can take an awesome teacher and turn them into the worst teacher ever if you set things up to fail: give them the lowest kids, throw in a few behavior problems, deny them resources, withhold help in dealing with classroom management, undermine them with parents and the district, and so on. If all of that does not simply run them out, and they outlast the administration's efforts, they still have a job. It makes it a less attractive avenue for harassment if it's not guaranteed to work.

Anyhow. That's my two cents, from inside the belly of the beast.


You sound fat.

/I keed
//not enough money to entice me to teach
///good luck
 
2014-06-10 06:34:44 PM

weasil: California teacher/union thug/exploiter of the taxpayers here.

Permanent status would be better given after 5 years, as studies show that's where the highest turnover rate is anyway. People figure out quickly whether they're fit for the job or not, and if we give them less reason to hang out, they're more likely to move on.

The "dance of the lemons" is the most vile and annoying thing ever. In a district the size of mine, you get to know who these people are and cringe when they show up at your school.

Seniority-based lay-offs (or in my case, a forced change-of-school) are sad, BUT without a way to definitively say which teacher is "better" I'm fine with it. IF your district doesn't have an alternate way of ranking teachers, it's as good a way as any.

Now, to deciding who is a "better" teacher ---- there are some teachers, often new and full of energy, who engage their students and make everything exciting --- BUT DON'T TEACH A GOD DAMN THING (in relation to the standards and content they are supposed to be delivering), and at the same time there are teachers, often old and a bit tired, who can't keep up the circus act anymore --- but who know their content inside and out and can explain in detail the concepts and understanding necessary for mastering that particular subject.

If you ask a 10-year-old who the "better" teacher is, they aren't exactly in the best position to say, since they judge "better" on a different scale than adults. I've found parents are also frequently misled into believing that the teacher that rolls out the coolest-looking projects at Open House is the "better" teacher. Or the one that always gives in to whatever parents want, whether that's in the best interest of the student or not.  And "better" is different from kid to kid. I know that I'm not a good teacher for certain kinds of kids, but that I'm the best kind of teacher for others (I'm very structured). I trust my colleagues in the grades below me to know what kinds of kids go best ...


Completely agree with all of this.

Also - Teachers don't get to pick their students, just the school they teach at.   Who in their right mind would want to teach in a place where there are more problems for less pay?  (most failing schools)

The education problem in this country has far less to do with the teachers and much more to do with the parents (or lack thereof).
 
2014-06-10 06:38:51 PM

kendelrio: You sound fat.

/I keed


6 feet tall and 200 pounds. If I was a guy that would almost be OK. Gives me plenty of space to hold my sense of humor.

/thyroid issues
//taxpayer provided healthcare FTW
///slashies!!!
 
2014-06-10 06:39:27 PM
I had so many bad teachers that would have been fired but for tenure -- more power to the plaintiffs.  Why should teachers and bureaucrats have such highly protected positions?
 
2014-06-10 06:40:32 PM

max_pooper: And nobody has been able to come up with a metric that does that.


Why is that so?  Why not say something like "if a teacher has kids that score lower than the other teachers in the same grade for more than three years, they're out!".  Wouldn't that normalize out the "bad students, bad administration, ... etc?
 
2014-06-10 06:42:47 PM

weasil: kendelrio: You sound fat.

/I keed

6 feet tall and 200 pounds. If I was a guy that would almost be OK. Gives me plenty of space to hold my sense of humor.

/thyroid issues
//taxpayer provided healthcare FTW
///slashies!!!


howyoudoin.jpg
 
2014-06-10 06:44:51 PM

muddythinker: Why should teachers and bureaucrats have such highly protected positions?


Teachers are in an excellent position to be screwed over by manipulative parents, who exist in droves. That's why.
 
2014-06-10 06:51:41 PM

mangeybear: Why not say something like "if a teacher has kids that score lower than the other teachers in the same grade for more than three years, they're out!".


Because for each of the last 5 years, one of the teachers on my grade-level team has been given the lowest of the low kids, the language learners (he's fluent in Spanish, but that doesn't help him with the Korean kids), the worst discipline problems (he's an MMA fighter on the weekends, so they don't pull as much shiat with him), and NONE of the gifted kids, even though he's certified to teach them. This last year 1/4 of his class was special ed. He always has the lowest scores. Always. But he works harder than all the rest of us combined. He is absolutely a better teacher than I am (not the lack of quotes on that this time), but NO ONE will ever request that their kid be in his class, because then their kid will be in with the lowest kids, dodging the behavior problems.
 
2014-06-10 06:53:30 PM

weasil: Iluvbeer: Tenure makes sense for university professors on the forefront of radical thoughts and ideas, but no third grade public school teacher is in the business of contemplating and exposing radical thought in the classroom.

"Radical thought" at that level covers things like doing the job that's actually in your contract and refusing to take on duties outside of it. I know, crazy. Or refusing to rubberstamp your principal's ideas on committees that have teachers AND administrators on them so that both parties can actually be represented. Or complaining to the district when your administration repeatedly sets up situations that are detrimental to the school culture --- like rewarding students with histories of violent behavior instead of disciplining them and/or stopping the behavior.

Teachers and administrators do not always agree. Permanent status gives the protection needed to be able to voice our positions without fear of retribution (at least the kind that can get us fired --- they can still fark with you if they're petty).


Dude... all employees are subject to office politics and subjective decision making by upper levels.

Disagreeing with your boss isn't radical thought.  Its just day to day work life.  So there is no reason that a teacher needs special protections that others don't get.

In fact, if you are so worried about getting fired for expressing alternative opinions, it probably means your opinions are so ridiculously stupid that the administration had determined you are unlikely to ever have a helpful opinion and probably should not be given control of a classroom full of children.
 
2014-06-10 06:53:46 PM

max_pooper: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: everlastinggobstopper: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Compensation really needs to be merit based.  Communism just doesn't work.

Care to take a stab at what constitutes 'merit' in primary education, secondary education, and higher ed?

You have to design standards that work, that are measurable.  Without them, it's a race to the bottom as everybody gets the same pay regardless of performance.  Why work harder than the bare minimum if you never get recognized for it?  Some teachers will teach for the love of it, but if I'm a parent, I'd prefer more concrete incentives.


And nobody has been able to come up with a metric that does that.


You don't have to. Establish a voucher-based system and your customers, aka the parents, will decide which institution is doing a better job by whatever standards they want to employ. That avoids the endless argument of what the standards should be, who should enforce them, yada yada yada, that prevents reform from ever happening.
 
2014-06-10 06:59:02 PM

Queensowntalia: muddythinker: Why should teachers and bureaucrats have such highly protected positions?

Teachers are in an excellent position to be screwed over by manipulative parents, who exist in droves. That's why.


So very true. I've been accused of some pretty heinous things, including completely crushing a child's spirit, and utterly destroying another's joy of learning. It's amazing how fragile children can be when you don't accept their late/plagiarized work (especially when it's actually the parent's work, they hate getting down-graded for cheating).
 
2014-06-10 07:00:10 PM

dpzum1: dpzum1: this one is easy...
increase the pay for teachers, and get rid of the whole tenure thing. this will ensure a constant supply of teachers who actually PERFORM WHAT THEY"RE PAID TO DO.

No where else do you only need to be employed for a certain time to be almost immune from firing, REGARDLESS OF YOUR JOB PERFORMANCE.
Yes, they should earn more money. Key word here: EARN

Oh, right. I forgot about most other union jobs...


This is still the case in most of those other union places- you can lose your job if you're documented being a lousy worker, especially if you have very little to no connections.

The worst bit is that the unions which used to be powerful and all protective, are losing steam because the people in charge, the most senior people in those unions are being given bonuses or early retirements if the management gets its way.
Then the senior guys tell the noobs: Fark you; I got mine!
 
2014-06-10 07:00:28 PM
TuteTibiImperes

The problem is, of course, how do you determine who is genuinely bad in the position vs who is the victim of false accusations, office politics, or unable to do their job effectively due to non-existant or poor administrative support.

This is true but the more fundamental point is why does a member of the judicial branch get to make these types of decisions? The idea the that a Constitution--any Constitution--can guarantee quality is asinine.  Ultimately--what is or is not a "quality education" is something for the political process, the legislature, to decide.
 
Displayed 50 of 104 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report