California - LA Superior Court judge rules tenure unconstitutional

I went to a private school for middle school and it certainly was NOT better than public school. The teachers had no control, literally physically abused the children, and the principal would run out crying. As soon as we graduated and went to the public high school, most of the kids ended up doing drugs or getting pregnant.

Private schools and charter schools are not necessarily better by default. I've visited many public schools which blow both high-end private and charter schools out of the water.

 

You are right in the way. New is a comparison word. Therefore, if a teacher trained in the Finnish Universities to become teachers, they may be completely effective when they are finally given their own classroom, but they will still be new by definition. I bet we can do a heck of a lot better than what we do to people who are getting teaching degrees. What is done is not fair to anyone, including the new teacher.

BTW, evil was your term. I said ineffective. There is a big difference.

 

The thing is, I don't think any teaching candidate can be completely effective without having gained a wide amount of experience in the classroom as a teacher.

 

OK, Peregrin. You win. Perfection (completely effective) won't ever be gained until teachers have had their own classrooms for a long time.

So, what is the thing? An excuse to not drastically change how teachers are trained so they don't get into classrooms unprepared for what they have to do? If not, what is the thing?

 

To not be afraid of letting inexperienced teachers gain that experience. Yes a few students will miss out on some instruction and concepts in the worst case scenario.

I've never met a teacher who was completely comfortable in the classroom and with their subject who was a brand new teacher. Even if they were very very good teachers, these teachers always lack something in classroom management, or subject area, etc. They need to work on these things. If a teacher told me they came straight out of the teaching program and were completely effective and had no problems in the classroom, I would call that teacher a liar.

I am with you on rebuilding our teacher credentialing. Simply put, our system sucks. But I've heard you consistently bemoan again and again on this forum about the instruction students lose when they have new and inexperienced teachers. Inexperienced teachers are never going away. There is always going to be someone new and students are going to not get instruction that is as good as someone who has taught for decades. Rather than bemoaning new and ineffective teachers who are ineffective due to inexperience, why don't you put your efforts into providing ideas to improve our credentialing programs so they produce teachers that match your criteria for being able to be effective yet inexperienced teachers?

 

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-schneider-vergara-teachers-20140610-story.html

Making it easier to fire teachers won't get you better ones... OP-ED piece...

 

:thumb: I couldn't agree more.

I will tell you that I think this is terrible, but it doesn't have to mean the end of good teachers in California. The Southern states have always been without unions (well, since the 70s), and we're surviving with decent salaries and due process. This doesn't have to be a death sentence for tenured teachers.

 

I live in NJ and I'm suprised at the amount of hate people have towards educators. Part of that hate has to do with the NJEA and property taxes. First, property taxes are through the roof in NJ. We equate high property tax with public education. They go hand in hand. People always bring up the high teacher and administration salaries. I know people who pay over $12k a year in property tax. Second, the NJEA has got to do a better job at public relations. When the country was in the grip of the recession what did the NJEA do? They demanded raise increases for educators. Average taxpayers are losing everything and the teacher union is asking for a pay increase.

Unfortunately people view educators as spoiled brats. They seem to believe that we make big bucks, have amazing pensions, and we get to sit around and eat bon bons. This is farthest from the truth.

 

I agree with this article special pre. I feel support would make a huge difference!

 

Read this article today: http://dianeravitch.net/2014/06/11/were-the-vergara-trial-teachers-grossly-ineffective-no/

The students who testified in the lawsuit about how their lives were detrimentally affected because of bad teachers attend charter schools where there is no tenure or named an ineffective teacher who actually has many accolades for her teaching. Seems very fishy to me.

 

From your lips to my parents' ears.:lol::lol: Ever since I was a kid, I remember my parents moaning and groaning about how insanely high the property taxes in NJ are (and now that I'm adult, I understand). Since they're nearing retirement, my parents are talking about finally leaving NJ once and for all.

 

The teacher down the hall from me was fired. She was a 19 year veteran who was on the union executive board. We loved her as a friend, but all us were glad she was fired since she was liking sinking into dementia.

This California decision is all about taking away due process from teachers. I'm guessing the ultimate aim of David Welsh, the millionaire who brought the suit, is to do away with public education. He has no evidence that removing due process will improve teaching since states which already ban due process have the lowest test scores.

 

The poor case these plaintiffs make is exactly why we NEED tenure. To protect teachers from losing their livelihood based on the unqualified opinions of students and parents who hold no ability to accurately judge a teacher’s worth.

It’s been said to me, that teaching is unlike any service job. In the course of doing our jobs well, it is EXPECTED that our ‘customers’ will be left unhappy or unsatisfied. No parent likes hearing their student is being held accountable for poor behavior or to see a poor report card come home. But doing these things is necessary to help the student grow, experience his mistakes and improve. I can forsee teaching becoming a brown-nosing job where teachers have no control over the classroom because they aren’t allowed to enact consequences in fear of angering parents and losing their job, and where grade inflation is rampant for the same reason.

Education will lose its meaning and become nothing more than a business.

 

I think you're answering your own questions, and I happen to agree.

First of all, the system needs to be changed. Teachers like yourself (I'm presuming, but--hard-working, dedicated, talented) should not be in jeopardy. It is the people like that 25+ year teacher who should be. That is the heart of this. The bottom line is that we shouldn't overprotect for the possibility that a "wonderful teacher" might get persecuted over some nonsense. I'm not saying that it isn't possible; I'm saying that I think it is remote. And keeping good, young teachers out of the classroom is not worth protecting for the possibility, of some rogue parent(s) out "to get someone".

 

I think that IS a legitimate argument, but I think it (i.e. grade inflation) is already happening. Rampantly.

I do agree that teachers need the freedom to hold students accountable.

 

My state has tenure. Our school district recognizes tenure but each teacher is evaluated at least once every year for a whole period. The administration also does walk throughs several times a year to get a feel for what the teacher is doing. A teacher at my school can be put on a plan first before anything else happens. Most of those teachers have been retained so ANY teacher can be removed. However, if you happen to be the principal's pet (and there are several) you can do what you want as far as everyone knows.

 

I live in NJ, too. That person must have a 400k house. I hate when people just through about the property tax without the amount of the house. Like he/she's paying 12k on a 150k home.

 

I know many people who purchased homes in the right area for an amount that was not outrageous who saw their homes appreciate at an astronomical rate. They ended up with very expensive homes, even after the last home price drop, and have to pay much higher taxes than they ever anticipated. When a home triples in value in less than a decade, that can happen. Who would have thought that would happen when home appreciation never escalated at that rate before.

 

That happened to a friend of mine that inherited her parent's home. They came in an reevaluated the value. Taxes went up. I don't think it's fair to say "I pay 20K in taxes" and then not give the value of your home. Are paying 20K on a 200K home or a 2 million dollar home? NJ prices aren't that much higher than other areas. I remember reading we were somewhere like 5-7 on property taxes. We actually pay a lot in sales taxes and have taxes on things like food that other states don't.

 

I guess I still don't see why it bothers you that someone paying 12K doesn't say how much their house is worth. What would you gain by knowing the person owns (mortgages) a 200K home or a 400K home or even a 2 M home? Property tax is typically a rate per 1,000. Are rates so drastically different from one area to another? Ours are a bit different in our state but not enough to changes a tax bill on a 200K home from 8 thousand to 20 thousand.

 

That's the whole point. I know, because I live in NJ. Someone not living in NJ might be thinking "OMG. In NJ they're paying 12K on a 150K house". I think it give people the wrong idea of how high our taxes. I never said you'd be paying 20K on a 200K house. There's a BIG difference between paying 20K on a 200k house and 20K on an almost 700K house, which would be about right in NJ. I think it gives the wrong impression when you give the taxes without the value of the home. There's a big range.

 

Thanks for your reply. Now I understand your thinking.

I saw enough of a context and know enough about NJ to know that most likely if the poster was saying taxes were high and 12K is a lot of money (unless you are looking at a million dollar home) that the rate was probably higher than most. Then I did a quick look up for NJ rates and it showed what the OP was saying. Most NJ jurisdictions have much higher property taxes than many places across the country.

 

Here it takes 5 years to get tenure.

I think tenure is important because it provides us some protection. Does it protect bad teachers? Maybe, but I don't know how to weed out bad teachers without punishing good ones.

 

Lets see, it will probably cost you at least 50k to be teacher with school. Salaries are low for a college degree. Paperwork and testing is now becoming insane and btw now you have NO job security so KTA of any and all admins that have power. The reason we have some lousy teachers is because the powers that be do not pay attention and weed them out in three years or they knew someone.

 

The amount of strawmen in this thread is bordering on the ridiculous.

I'd love to see any evidence of teachers being fired to save money. There's plenty of evidence of teachers being rubber roomed because of the cost of removing them. I've not seen any of the former.

Tyler, you say that states without tenure are the lowest performing. That ignores California which has basically the strongest union protections on the nation and is consistently among the worst performing not to mention the Washington DC schools.

Job protections exist in every single line of work - public and private, union and non-union. Tenure shifted from this idea of academic freedom to this idea of freedom from fear. I think a little fear might do some good among a very complacent work force like the one I see in my profession.

 

Here's a map with ranking of education
http://www.edweek.org/ew/qc/2014/state_report_cards.html

and here's another report on education rankings by state - CA is #30 - http://www.alec.org/publications/report-card-on-american-education/

 

As someone said, when you hold students accountable, students and teachers are not happy. I can't recall how many times I heard a student say someone can't teach, only to follow by, "because she gave me a C!"

If they strip away any protection and due process, and if I'm going to be faced with the possibility of losing my job because of holding students accountable, then I have more incentives to NOT hold them accountable. It's just like merit-based pay. If my job is on the line, I'll have to be faced with the decision of risking my job or going against my values.

 

It should also be noted that at least two of the students in this lawsuit attended charter schools.

Or if not charter schools, they were at least schools that didn't have any type of tenure protection. Any teacher could be fired for any reason.

And one of the "ineffective teachers" named in the lawsuit is a semifinalist for county teacher of the year, and has won several awards. We should all be so privileged that have such an ineffective teacher.

 

It should be noted that CA has over 2 million children living in poverty (or almost 1/4 of all children in the state): http://datacenter.kidscount.org/dat...ed/2/2-52/false/868,867,133,38,35/any/321,322

And that we also have more than 1.3 million English learners in CA's public schools alone, or about 22% of our student population:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefelfacts.asp
(It should be noted that 43% of public school students in CA, or 2.7 million students, speak a language other than English at home. I have MANY students who are not classified as ELs, but speak either only Spanish or a combination of English and Spanish in their homes.)

I just can't sit silently by and read educational rankings when things such as poverty and English Learner status are not taken into account. California's public school system is MUCH BETTER than it is made out to be. And it's "low performance" has nothing to do with teacher tenure or effectiveness.