http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger--the man who rode to the state's highest office on a flood tide of popularity--is in deep political trouble. A non-partisan poll released Wednesday showed that only 39 percent of registered voters asked would give the governor another term. Adding to his woes are the politically costly fights Schwarzenegger picked with some of the groups that supported him in the 2003 recall election that put him in office. Confrontations on a number of issues have placed the governor in the crosshairs of the unions representing the state's teachers, nurses, police officers, public employees and firefighters.
Right now, he only gets to finish out Gray Davis' term. So he'll be up for reelection at the end of '06. Unfortunately, his two ballot initiatives will be voted on this fall. The one making teachers wait 5 years to get tenure is curretly winning by a 2-1 margin in polls.
I found the initiative about making teachers permanent status after 5 years instead of 2. Does someone know the ramifications of this? Does this impact salary, retirement etc? Here is some information on recall incase anyone is interested: By law, the committee had to collect signatures from registered California voters amounting to 12% of the number of Californians who voted in the previous gubernatorial election (November 2002) for the special recall vote to take place. Organizers had 160 days to collect signatures. California's Constitution requires that a recall election be held within 80 days of the date the recall petition is certified, or within 180 days if a regularly scheduled statewide election comes within that time. The requirements to run were relatively low and attracted a number of interesting and strange candidates. A California citizen needed only to gather 65 signatures from their own party and pay a nonrefundable $3,500 fee to become a candidate, or "in lieu" of the fee collect up to 10,000 signatures from any party, the fee being prorated by the fraction of 10,000 valid signatures the candidate filed. California's first-ever gubernatorial recall election was held on October 7, and the results were certified on November 14, 2003, making Davis the first governor recalled in the history of California, and just the second in U.S. history.
Here's a summary of the tenure initiative from the CA Secretary of State: Public School Teachers. Waiting Period for Permanent Status. Dismissal. Initiative Statute. Proponent: Bonnie Garcia (760) 202-7714 Increases length of time required before a teacher may become a permanent employee from two complete consecutive school years to five complete consecutive school years; measure applies to teachers whose probationary period commenced during or after the 2003-2004 fiscal year. Authorizes school boards to dismiss a permanent teaching employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Unknown impact on school district teacher salary costs as a result of changes in teacher tenure and dismissal practices. Fiscal impacts could vary significantly district by district. And here's the poll data showing that this proposal is currently winning by a 2-1 margin. At least the school funding proposal is losing. http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/RLS2159.pdf
I can't believe this proposal is winning 2-1 margin... makes no sense to me - should I call the proponent Bonnie??? Does this mean new teacher's will get lower pay because all the more experienced ones are retiring... saving districts tons of money...? here's a blog and opinion on this initiative http://pastordan.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/15/15312/1048 Tenure: "...a status granted to a teacher usually after a probationary period that protects him or her from dismissal except for reasons of incompetence, gross misconduct, or financial necessity." My wife got her degree and her credential, which took five years. She signed a one year contract her first year for $24,000 a year, worked incredibly long hard hours in extremely trying conditions, and was told at the end of the year her services were no longer required. One week before the next school year started she got a call--could she sign another 1 year contract and show up to work in a week? She hustled like mad to get all her materials back to her room and worked like a Trojan again for nine months. Again in June the letter came--thank you very much, please beat it. Again she got the call, this time three weeks before the year started. In her third year her principal, who had total power of her future as a teacher, gave her tenure and a real professional slot in the school. Now she could plan, feel settled, get to truly know and commit to the staff and community, and look forward to raking in the big bucks. Right. Arnold wants to raise the "probationary" period for beginner teachers from 3 years to five in this year's election. Only the most masochistic or unable-to-get-a-job-anywhere-else crowd will sign up to become a teacher in California if it passes. Who on earth would ever sign up for five years of such rank potential manipulation, anxiety, insecurity, and total poverty on top of all the other strenuous demands of teaching? Not only that, this initiative does nothing to increase funding to our schools, which are shorted by at least 20%. It does nothing to ease overcrowded classrooms, crumbling facilities, or ameliorate English as a second language issues. It doesn't give our kids better nutrition, more school days, day care options, or any solution to any issue. It just makes a bad situation worse. Coupled with a horrible betrayal in not returning $2 billion in school funding that was promised this initiative is far worse than a slap in the face to our dedicated teachers. It's a direct attack on everything they stand for while it screws our children. Arnold Schwarzenegger thinks he can abuse our teachers and abandon our kids in California with this election. He's so wrong he's going to regret he was ever so stupid to pick this fight. this is really interesting too: http://www.cta.org/Features/StateBudgetCrisis/05/20050516_1.htm
I'm a bit surprised by the margin as well. If this passes it could have dire consequences on that state of education in CA. It's just one more reason not to become a teacher. My understanding is that CA (along with Missouri) already has the longest tenure requirement in the country. That being said, I don't think they can pay you any less because of this. Just that they can fire you without cause. The voting is still several months away. I'm hoping that the teacher's unions will be able to turn the tide against this proposal.
In Missouri, it takes 5 years to get tenure. I wonder how this compares to other states? 5 years doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
Sorry to say I'm not surprised that the initiative is winning 2-to-1. The state and the country are very divided politically and economically and a lot of people are profoundly nervous about hanging on to what they have got: in those circumstances, history suggests, human beings like to identify a Them to be angry at (as in "It's Their fault", where "their" refers to whoever we want to scapegoat) and take things out on that group. I think it will take very adroit campaigning to keep the initiative from passing - and, given the climate (plus the widespread misapprehension that teachers are just glorified babysitters with good retirement plans and long vacations), involving the teachers' unions could be the kiss of death. I would LOVE to be proven wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.
How can I get involved in this - okay, I admit it... i never really get involved politically... this initiative is for november 8th I think.. I just register and vote on this... sure seems like no one is on the teacher's side these days... I know that on other jobs you can be laid off just like that but still
If you want to get involved, you could contact the California Teachers Association and see if there's anything you can do. http://www.cta.org/CTA.htm Or you can email all your friends in CA and urge them to vote against it and ask them to pass your message onto others. BTW, I disagree that in other jobs you can be laid off just like that. Yes, that's true in the private sector but we won't be working in the private sector. In the public sector you accept a lower salary in exchange for greater job security. When I worked for the federal government, I only served a one-year probationary period. After that, I would have had to do something really, really stupid to get fired.
thanks for the information on getting involved - I really appreciate it. It's weird to how Missouri and now California are the only states that are doing this ... do you think it's difficult to stay at a public school for five years - do they keep getting rid of people? Can you imagine you're at the end of the forth year and they decide for some reason to get rid of you.. that would be horrible... maybe those four years could be added to another year at another school?
Missouri is not just now doing this. It's been 5 years for as long as I can remember. I have never seen a problem with it. Schools like to keep good teachers rather than get rid of them. If you're at the end of your fourth year and you're let go because you're not a good teacher, maybe you should find another career. If you are a good teacher, you won't have a problem getting a job elsewhere. In the 2 districts I've taught in, the only problem I have seen with tenure is bad teachers who have been around way too long, and the school cannot fire them because they have tenure. 5 years will fly by. I don't think it's unreasonable, but it's always been this way here and I've never seen any problems with people being let go for "no reason." There have been cases where the person being let go didn't understand, but the rest of the staff did. Unfortunately some people don't realize they aren't good at teaching until they've gotten there... Prospective teachers need the opportunity to get more experience before going through the entire degree program and getting certified.
I hear what you're saying Amanda. My concern is more of a global one than an individual one. Right now, there are HUGE disincentives to become a teacher in California. Yes, the average pay in CA is higher than anywhere else in the country but once you factor in the cost-of-living, it's actually the lowest by far. The CA credential is also one of the hardest to get in the country. Just look at all the tests we have to take to become a teacher. CA doesn't need to be creating more reasons for not becoming a teacher. Yes, making us wait longer for tenure will weed out some bad teachers but it will do NOTHING to attract bright, talented, committed, energetic individuals to the teaching profession. That's what we need. You also have to understand the political climate in which this is occuring. The Governator recently reneged on a promise to restore $5.2 billion in school funding. Instead he only restored 2.9 billion, leaving school funding over $2 billion short. On top of that, there's another measure on the ballot (proposed by the Governator) that would further cut school spending (fortunately, that one is currently losing in the polls). Again, all of this creates a climate in which people will choose not to become teachers.
I agree with you on the housing and teacher pay issue in California and I am glad to hear that that other initiative is losing in the polls. I have the hunch that extending tenure from 2 to 5 years isn't so black and white - weeding out bad teachers - but involves economics, politics... Off subject -- Did you hear about the history teacher is NY - he called in sick took his 11 days and it was later discovered that he was working - professional wrestling.. he resigned and is now banned from working in NY School District...
