Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Asinine, ethnicity, Theodore B. Olson, Golden State  
•       •       •

3756 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jun 2014 at 5:25 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2014-06-10 02:22:22 PM  
7 votes:
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 06:22:04 PM  
5 votes:
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.
F42
2014-06-10 05:41:55 PM  
4 votes:
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 05:54:56 PM  
3 votes:

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 05:37:54 PM  
3 votes:

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 05:37:15 PM  
3 votes:

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 05:35:20 PM  
3 votes:
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 02:52:18 PM  
3 votes:
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.
2014-06-11 01:17:01 AM  
2 votes:

anfrind: SubBass49: anfrind: weasil: That said, anyone convicted of an abuse of their power as a teacher should lose their teaching license. I don't think you're going to find anyone backing the kiddy-diddlers on any front here.

So why was it so damn hard to fire that one teacher who made his third-grade class eat semen?

Because administrators didn't do their jobs...but let's have ALL teachers suffer because of that...this farking judge is a dickwad

Point taken.


Yeah, that one was a HUGE mismanagement. If any single teacher or administrator had any suspicion whatsoever that any misconduct was happening, they were REQUIRED BY LAW AS A MANDATED REPORTER to file a report, which they could do anonymously. I had to do this once when a kid showed up with weird bruising, I asked about it, and they said their dad beat them for something. Even if they had said they fell off their bike, the nature of the bruising was enough for me to NEED to file a report. The dad had the cops on his doorstep in hours.

They did NOT need to go through a dismissal process to get him out of the classroom. They could have gone straight to the cops and had him jailed, and thus removed from the classroom and any further victims. That's part of why they shut the school down and rebooted it with new staff  --- to find out who was so farked up as to think it was not worth the trouble to keep that from happening.
2014-06-11 12:26:22 AM  
2 votes:

SubBass49: anfrind: weasil: That said, anyone convicted of an abuse of their power as a teacher should lose their teaching license. I don't think you're going to find anyone backing the kiddy-diddlers on any front here.

So why was it so damn hard to fire that one teacher who made his third-grade class eat semen?

Because administrators didn't do their jobs...but let's have ALL teachers suffer because of that...this farking judge is a dickwad


Point taken.
2014-06-10 06:51:41 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:34:44 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:12:17 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:10:45 PM  
2 votes:
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 06:02:44 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:55:38 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:48:34 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:47:20 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:38:02 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2014-06-10 03:55:03 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2014-06-11 01:55:20 PM  
1 vote:

weasil: Why are these protections NOT found elsewhere?


Because everyone knows the protections are abused.  I know it, and you know it (or you didn't follow iluvbeer's links).  You can argue that the evidence is anecdotal (although unlike your MMA teacher friend story, the union abuses are documented), but you can't argue that lousy teachers that don't deserve to be teaching are protected.   And here's another link, in case you're still not convinced.

So, now that we know unequivocally that the abuse exists, the question is how much.  You probably think the number is very small, and I think there's more.  Maybe not a whole lot, but even in my kids' good, middle class school, there are a handful of teachers that should working at the DMV, or McDonalds, or Target, or something.  There has to be an objective measure of how good a teacher is, and that measure should be test scores of the children.  Don't grant tenure to someone unless whatever school district they're in, there scores are in line with the scores of other teachers in the same grade for an extended period.  And to factor out your "principal keeps giving my friend bad students", then compare the test scores of their students with the same students percentiles from earlier in the year, or the previous grade, or something.  Don't remove someone who does bad in year 1, or 2, or 3, but by year 4, if they continue bad results, their out.  And if they change jobs within the district, their history travels with them.  And if they move out of a district, they start all over the on the tenure path.

And I'm sure you're ready to give me the "teaching to the test" counter argument, but I'll say this:  the SAT is a great predictor of professional capabilities.  If you taught someone just to do well on the SAT, you'll find they do pretty well on a lot of other things.
2014-06-11 12:14:02 AM  
1 vote:
Let's compare California state judges to what the plaintiffs demand of teachers.
1. Do judges that sentence defendants with lower rates of recidivism get higher pay than ones with higher rates of recidivism? No.
2.  In respect to Question1, do the disparate outcomes for poor and minorities in the legal system result in removal of judges from the bench even if no breach of judicial ethical standards occurs?  No.
3.  Is judicial pay merit based on the volume of cases or a standardized test of judicial efficiency? No.
4.  Is is difficult and/or expensive to remove an incompetent, or unethical judge?  Yes. California spends about $4 million a year on an average of 1,000 formal complaints lodged against judges and removes about 1 judge per year on average over the last decade.
5.  Can a judge be removed during their term for anything less than an egregious violation of judicial ethics or near absolute incompetence? No. (Lower court judges can be removed at a retention election, but there's no standardized testing results presented to voters when they make the decision to vote to retain judges or not)
6.  Is judicial competency or merit pay measured by case volume or the rate of reversal on appeal? No.
7. Do California judges have to be a member of a trade guild or union? Yes-the California bar.
7.  Does the California state constitution guarantee equal protection of the law for all? Yes.
8.  Has the fact that the California judges are not compensated on a merit pay system or that it is difficult and expensive to remove an incompetent or unethical judge and that outcomes in the California court system differ significantly for parties who are poor and/or a minority in comparison to others who are not resulted in a judge finding the system of judicial tenure in California is unconstitutional under the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the law? Of farkin course not.
7.  Regarding Question 6 has any judge ordered the entire system of judicial appointments and tenure be scrapped as unconstitutional because of the disparate impact of judges upon poor and/minority parties?

I'm sure the judge here would just jump at the chance to follow his same line of reasoning in his opinion to eliminate his own job protection.
2014-06-10 11:56:18 PM  
1 vote:

weasil: For those who are interested, there's an Assembly Bill in the legislature that would streamline the dismissal process. Here's the bill itself:  http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=2 0 1320140AB215

Here's the union's summary of why it would be good, including stepping up timelines to get things done, and having a separate pathway for "egregious offenses" (like semen-cookies): http://www.cta.org/Issues-and-Action/Legislation/Teacher-Dismissal-Bi l l-AB-215.aspx

Thanks!


You mean there's room for those most familiar with the system to make some tweaks to improve the overall efficiency instead of just throwing the whole thing out?  Well fark me in the ass and call me Susan, whoever came up with that must be a wizard.
2014-06-10 11:50:11 PM  
1 vote:
For those who are interested, there's an Assembly Bill in the legislature that would streamline the dismissal process. Here's the bill itself:  http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=2 0 1320140AB215

Here's the union's summary of why it would be good, including stepping up timelines to get things done, and having a separate pathway for "egregious offenses" (like semen-cookies): http://www.cta.org/Issues-and-Action/Legislation/Teacher-Dismissal-Bi l l-AB-215.aspx

Thanks!
2014-06-10 10:56:49 PM  
1 vote:

slayer199: 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.

Somehow private schools manage to perform well without tenure.

How about an independent board of parents, teachers, and citizens that evaluate if a teacher is any good.


Ok. I'll bite. You $ay that can't think of any rea$on why private $chool$ do well. Gee, that'$ a $tumper alright. Maybe because private schools don't have to take any and all students? No, that can't be it. There may be another reason. I'm sure I'll think of it. I'm forced to guess what you feel makes a private school. I will assume a school that the parents that are sending their kids to, also directly pay the school and have a personal and financial interest in the outcomes. I.e highly involved parents.

An independent board of parents, teachers, and citizens that evaluate if teacher is any good.
Evaluate based on what? Test scores?  What kind of testing? Multiple choice? Highly subjective essays? For Kindergarten? 1st? 2nd? Do you really think testing proves anything? Best teaching practices? How would parents or random citizens have any idea whatsoever what best teaching is?

An independent board? What is that? The people in the area that the school covers? Is that your idea of independent? Or are your thinking of something like jury duty of people that don't have any tie to that school? Because everyone knows how much all citizens want to participate in jury duty. I'm sure you would get very similar results in your school pool as in your jury pool.

The people you would end up with would be the same people that aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty or Young Earth Creationists trying to push their views into the public school system. But I may be repeating myself.

 / All this magical thinking that there is somehow a board, a law, a test that gives perfect answers to dealing with imperfect people.
2014-06-10 08:14:42 PM  
1 vote:

ThrobblefootSpectre: 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.

I would say the exact same process that anybody in any professional position is subjected to when an workplace accusation (sexual harassment, etc) is made.  It's not like teachers are the only people in the world who could possible face such accusations unfairly.  If a mere word of mouth accusation is all it takes, then so be it...but for all job types.  If a year long drawn out investigation is required, then so be it, but for all job types.  Teachers don't need to be extra special.   And if you think there isn't office politics in a regular corporate environment, then you've never worked in one,


I think the protections for everyone should be closer to what tenured teachers, policemen, etc, get, than vice versa.  It should be damn hard to fire anyone, it should require proof, documented attempts to correct the problem (within reason, certain things should be ground for termination on a first offense), and include a chance for the employee to make his or her case in front of a neutral arbitrator who makes the final call.

Teachers do end up putting up with more BS than many other professions.  Sure, office politics are common everywhere, but most jobs don't include being the only adult in the room with 30 children every day, and parents tend to get blinders and act in irrational ways when their children are involved.
2014-06-10 07:56:14 PM  
1 vote:
Ok, Farkers. I want you to recall every School Admin story that we have all seen on Fark. Every Zero Tolerance, Over - reliance on School Policy decision, and just brain dead School Admin plan and action.

Those are the same people deciding who is and isn't a good teacher.... IF you want good teachers to go into that job and stay. They have to have some protection other than At-Will jobs.

That is why Tenure is needed....
2014-06-10 07:22:44 PM  
1 vote:

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.


Now see, I interpreted it as pregnancy and ethnicity of the students!

/ Or Subby is a dumbass...
2014-06-10 07:02:57 PM  
1 vote:
Subby, there are already other laws that protect against discrimination based on those things.   But tenure protects teachers who molest children and other sorts of gross misconduct.

/lefty who thinks you are NOT HELPING.
2014-06-10 06:59:02 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:44:51 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:32:35 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:28:36 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:27:03 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:24:26 PM  
1 vote:

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 05:57:04 PM  
1 vote:
Last time I checked you could still fire a tenured teacher for cause.
2014-06-10 05:32:56 PM  
1 vote:
Compensation really needs to be merit based.  Communism just doesn't work.
2014-06-10 05:31:22 PM  
1 vote:
This decision violates a teacher's right to not be fired for being bad at their job.
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report