How Does Teacher Tenure and Seniority Help Students?

[Disir]

First you have to figure out who the users are and then you have to make a choice if your going to damn the kid because of the parent.

For the love of God learn how to cut quotes.

I am still trying to break my habit of keeping two screens up trying to reply to more than one post.

A California court struck down teacher tenure and seniority provisions. The unions, as expected, are protesting.

Teachers unions are fighting back against a California ruling that gutted two things they hold sacred: tenure laws and seniority provisions. But they face an uphill battle to reshape their image as opponents—and even some allies—say they are standing in the way of needed improvements in education. ...

Teachers union critics say the tenure and seniority laws that were hobbled by the June ruling protect longtime educators who are ineffective while more proficient ones with less experience face layoffs first. ...

The developments have left the nation's two largest teachers unions in a quandary: how to alter the perception that they are obstacles to change while holding on to principles such as tenure that their members demand.

The unions used their recent national conventions to respond and have notched up the rhetoric. The National Education Association, the largest teachers union at about three million members, elected a new president who called certain teacher-performance metrics such as test scores "the mark of the devil."

The American Federation of Teachers, the second-biggest union at about 1.6 million members, backs a new group, Democrats for Public Education, which advocates for the union's causes. "Sadly, what has changed is that rather than helping teachers help kids, some…are suing to take away the voices of teachers," said AFT President Randi Weingarten. ...

In the California case, a state judge in June struck down certain protections for teachers, including tenure after about two years on the job and seniority protections in layoffs. He found in the case, Vergara v. California, that the measures can entrench unqualified teachers, preventing minority and low-income students from receiving the equitable public education required by the state's constitution.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/teachers-unions-under-fire-1409874404?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories

I certainly appreciate the work teachers do, and I have no problems with giving teachers protections against rash terminations, but I'm not sure how teacher tenure and seniority rules help kids.

I'm not sure it helps them either. Unions have one job, to protect their members. Everything else is secondary.

Unions are interested in themselves and have been for so long. People wanted to believe they were for the worker, but they are socialist/Marxist communities. Longtime president of the American Federation of Teachers union Al Shanker once said, “When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of schoolchildren.”

Politicians are paid to represent the interests of the United States, but they are paid by special interest groups, so those special interest groups get represented more than the voters who elect them.

The very same mechanics are at work with any union. If management paid more money into the union, the union certainly would begin to overlook the interests of the workers.

Children don't have a union.

Meanwhile, the left wing morons vote for the politicians that get paid off by these commies in the unions. You think this commie in chief president, "bailed out" the auto industry, or were the UAV union heads paid off?

Show me documentation that they are in it for themselves.

The law of nature...first being self-preservation.

That doesn't get it.

 

[Theowl32]

First you have to figure out who the users are and then you have to make a choice if your going to damn the kid because of the parent.

For the love of God learn how to cut quotes.

I am still trying to break my habit of keeping two screens up trying to reply to more than one post.

A California court struck down teacher tenure and seniority provisions. The unions, as expected, are protesting.

Teachers unions are fighting back against a California ruling that gutted two things they hold sacred: tenure laws and seniority provisions. But they face an uphill battle to reshape their image as opponents—and even some allies—say they are standing in the way of needed improvements in education. ...

Teachers union critics say the tenure and seniority laws that were hobbled by the June ruling protect longtime educators who are ineffective while more proficient ones with less experience face layoffs first. ...

The developments have left the nation's two largest teachers unions in a quandary: how to alter the perception that they are obstacles to change while holding on to principles such as tenure that their members demand.

The unions used their recent national conventions to respond and have notched up the rhetoric. The National Education Association, the largest teachers union at about three million members, elected a new president who called certain teacher-performance metrics such as test scores "the mark of the devil."

The American Federation of Teachers, the second-biggest union at about 1.6 million members, backs a new group, Democrats for Public Education, which advocates for the union's causes. "Sadly, what has changed is that rather than helping teachers help kids, some…are suing to take away the voices of teachers," said AFT President Randi Weingarten. ...

In the California case, a state judge in June struck down certain protections for teachers, including tenure after about two years on the job and seniority protections in layoffs. He found in the case, Vergara v. California, that the measures can entrench unqualified teachers, preventing minority and low-income students from receiving the equitable public education required by the state's constitution.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/teachers-unions-under-fire-1409874404?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories

I certainly appreciate the work teachers do, and I have no problems with giving teachers protections against rash terminations, but I'm not sure how teacher tenure and seniority rules help kids.

I'm not sure it helps them either. Unions have one job, to protect their members. Everything else is secondary.

Unions are interested in themselves and have been for so long. People wanted to believe they were for the worker, but they are socialist/Marxist communities. Longtime president of the American Federation of Teachers union Al Shanker once said, “When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of schoolchildren.”

Politicians are paid to represent the interests of the United States, but they are paid by special interest groups, so those special interest groups get represented more than the voters who elect them.

The very same mechanics are at work with any union. If management paid more money into the union, the union certainly would begin to overlook the interests of the workers.

Children don't have a union.

Meanwhile, the left wing morons vote for the politicians that get paid off by these commies in the unions. You think this commie in chief president, "bailed out" the auto industry, or were the UAV union heads paid off?

Show me documentation that they are in it for themselves.

The law of nature...first being self-preservation.

That doesn't get it.

Are you really so hopelessly stupid that you want documented proof that unions are out for themselves?

Holy shit, liberals are fucking morons.

 

[Bfgrn]

Date 2003

You think it's gotten better since then?

ROFLMAO.

Exit exams may be on their way out

Look at how fast testing changes. These are just exit exams. You want to know why there is no money in education? Pay attention to how much is spent on testing and what it actually accomplishes.

No money for education? We spend more than ever on an inflation adjusted basis.

In constant 2000-2001 dollars, we spent $3K per pupil in 1960. By 2000-2001, the per pupil amount increased to $8.8K, an increase of over 190% in CONSTANT DOLLARS.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d01/dt167.asp

Between 2000 and 2009, the CONSTANT DOLLAR spending per pupil (in 2009 dollars) increased by an other 20%, up to $10.6K.

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/expenditures/tables/table_06.asp

We spend more money now for worse results. The problem is not lack of money. The problem is lack of educational standards and rigor combined with politically correct multicultralistic pablum which pushes propaganda instead of promoting knowledge.

The problem IS "educational standards and rigor". Teaching to pass tests instead of teaching in-depth knowledge that leads to SELF knowledge and the ability to problem solve.

Incorrect.

The problem , once again, is that public schools have to accept EVERYONE and to put it bluntly, half of students in public schools are a waste of funds.

WOW. Too bad one of the most successful school systems in the world is based on equality.

Finnish Education Chief: 'We Created a School System Based on Equality'

The secret to the success of the Finnish school system is the fact that the schools are filled with Finnish students, not Somalian students.

Horse shit you racist scum bag.

Although there was a sizable achievement gap among students in the 1970s, strongly correlated to socio-economic status, this gap has been progressively reduced as a result of curriculum reforms started in the 1980s. By 2006, Finland’s between-school variance on the PISA science scale was only 5 percent, whereas the average between-school variance in other OECD nations was about 33 percent. (Large between-school variation is generally related to social inequality.)

The overall variation in achievement among Finnish students is also smaller than that of nearly all the other OECD countries. This is true despite the fact that immigration from nations with lower levels of education has increased sharply in recent years, and there is more linguistic and cultural diversity for schools to contend with. One recent analysis notes that in some urban schools the number of immigrant children or those whose mother tongue is not Finnish approaches 50 percent.

Although most immigrants are still from places like Sweden, the most rapidly growing newcomer groups since 1990 have been from Afghanistan, Bosnia, India, Iran, Iraq, Serbia, Somalia, Turkey, Thailand, and Vietnam. These new immigrants speak more than 60 languages. Yet achievement has been climbing in Finland and growing more equitable.

The process of change has been almost the reverse of policies in the United States. Over the past 40 years, Finland has shifted from a highly centralized system emphasizing external testing to a more localized system in which highly trained teachers design curriculum around the very lean national standards. This new system is implemented through equitable funding and extensive preparation for all teachers. The logic of the system is that investments in the capacity of local teachers and schools to meet the needs of all students, coupled with thoughtful guidance about goals, can unleash the benefits of local creativity in the cause of common, equitable outcomes.

Meanwhile, the United States has been imposing more external testing—often exacerbating differential access to curriculum—while creating more inequitable conditions in local schools. Resources for children and schools, in the form of both overall funding and the presence of trained, experienced teachers, have become more disparate in many states, thus undermining the capacity of schools to meet the outcomes that are ostensibly sought. Sahlberg notes that Finland has taken a very different path. He observes:

"The Finns have worked systematically over 35 years to make sure that competent professionals who can craft the best learning conditions for all students are in all schools, rather than thinking that standardized instruction and related testing can be brought in at the last minute to improve student learning and turn around failing schools." (Sahlberg, 2009, p. 22)

Sahlberg identifies a set of global reforms, undertaken especially in the Anglo-Saxon countries, that Finland has not adopted, including standardization of curriculum enforced by frequent external tests; narrowing of the curriculum to basic skills in reading and mathematics; reduced use of innovative teaching strategies; adoption of educational ideas from external sources, rather than development of local internal capacity for innovation and problem-solving; and adoption of high-stakes accountability policies, featuring rewards and sanctions for students, teachers, and schools. By contrast, he suggests:

"Finnish education policies are a result of four decades of systematic, mostly intentional, development that has created a culture of diversity, trust, and respect within Finnish society in general, and within its education system in particular.… Education sector development has been grounded on equal opportunities for all, equitable distribution of resources rather than competition, intensive early interventions for prevention, and building gradual trust among education practitioners, especially teachers." (Sahberg, p. 10)

Equity in opportunity to learn is supported in many ways in addition to basic funding.

Finnish schools are generally small (fewer than 300 pupils) with relatively small class sizes (in the 20s), and are uniformly well equipped. The notion of caring for students educationally and personally is a central principle in the schools. All students receive a free meal daily, as well as free health care, transportation, learning materials, and counseling in their schools, so that the foundations for learning are in place. Beyond that, access to quality curriculum and teachers has become a central aspect of Finnish educational policy.

more

 

[Rikurzhen]

Date 2003

You think it's gotten better since then?

ROFLMAO.

Exit exams may be on their way out

Look at how fast testing changes. These are just exit exams. You want to know why there is no money in education? Pay attention to how much is spent on testing and what it actually accomplishes.

No money for education? We spend more than ever on an inflation adjusted basis.

In constant 2000-2001 dollars, we spent $3K per pupil in 1960. By 2000-2001, the per pupil amount increased to $8.8K, an increase of over 190% in CONSTANT DOLLARS.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d01/dt167.asp

Between 2000 and 2009, the CONSTANT DOLLAR spending per pupil (in 2009 dollars) increased by an other 20%, up to $10.6K.

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/expenditures/tables/table_06.asp

We spend more money now for worse results. The problem is not lack of money. The problem is lack of educational standards and rigor combined with politically correct multicultralistic pablum which pushes propaganda instead of promoting knowledge.

The problem IS "educational standards and rigor". Teaching to pass tests instead of teaching in-depth knowledge that leads to SELF knowledge and the ability to problem solve.

Incorrect.

The problem , once again, is that public schools have to accept EVERYONE and to put it bluntly, half of students in public schools are a waste of funds.

WOW. Too bad one of the most successful school systems in the world is based on equality.

Finnish Education Chief: 'We Created a School System Based on Equality'

The secret to the success of the Finnish school system is the fact that the schools are filled with Finnish students, not Somalian students.

Horse shit you racist scum bag.

Look everyone, a creationist has crawled out from under his toadstool.

Although there was a sizable achievement gap among students in the 1970s, strongly correlated to socio-economic status, this gap has been progressively reduced as a result of curriculum reforms started in the 1980s. By 2006, Finland’s between-school variance on the PISA science scale was only 5 percent, whereas the average between-school variance in other OECD nations was about 33 percent. (Large between-school variation is generally related to social inequality.)

The overall variation in achievement among Finnish students is also smaller than that of nearly all the other OECD countries. This is true despite the fact that immigration from nations with lower levels of education has increased sharply in recent years, and there is more linguistic and cultural diversity for schools to contend with. One recent analysis notes that in some urban schools the number of immigrant children or those whose mother tongue is not Finnish approaches 50 percent.

This is priceless. Let's take a look at the nature of the immigrants to Finland:

Mother language	1990	1995	2000	2005	2013
Number	%	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%
Finnish	4,675,223	93.53%	4,754,787	92.92%	4,788,497	92.42%	4,819,819	91.71%	4,869,362	89.33%
Swedish	296,738	5.94%	294,664	5.76%	291,657	5.63%	289,675	5.51%	290,910	5.34%
Russian	3,884	0.08%	15,872	0.31%	28,205	0.54%	39,653	0.75%	66,379	1.22%
Estonian	1,394	0.03%	8,710	0.17%	10,176	0.2%	15,336	0.29%	42,936	0.79%
Somali	0	0%	4,057	0.08%	6,454	0.12%	8,593	0.16%	15,789	0.29%
English	3,569	0.07%	5,324	0.1%	6,919	0.13%	8,928	0.17%	15,570	0.29%
Arabic	1,138	0.02%	2,901	0.06%	4,892	0.09%	7,117	0.14%	13,170	0.24%
Kurdish	179	0%	1,381	0.03%	3,115	0.06%	5,123	0.1%	10,075	0.18%
Chinese	790	0.02%	2,190	0.04%	2,907	0.06%	4,613	0.09%	9,496	0.17%
Albanian	0	0%	2,019	0.04%	3,293	0.06%	5,076	0.1%	8,214	0.13%
Thai	244	0%	813	0.02%	1,458	0.03%	3,033	0.06%	7,513	0.14%
Persian	291	0.01%	803	0.02%	1,205	0.02%	3,165	0.06%	7,281	0.13%
Vietnamese	1,643	0.03%	2,785	0.05%	3,588	0.07%	4,202	0.08%	6,991	0.13%
Turkish	848	0.02%	1,809	0.04%	2,435	0.05%	3,595	0.07%	6,441	0.12%
Spanish	894	0.02%	1,394	0.03%	1,946	0.04%	2,937	0.06%	6,022	0.11%
German	2,427	0.05%	2,719	0.05%	3,298	0.06%	4,114	0.08%	5,902	0.11%
Polish	901	0.02%	1,129	0.02%	1,157	0.02%	1,445	0.03%	4,060	0.07%
French	670	0.01%	1,062	0.02%	1,585	0.03%	2,071	0.04%	3,524	0.06%
Hungarian	573	0.01%	732	0.01%	1,089	0.02%	1,206	0.02%	2,527	0.05%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

So when the report claims some Finnish schools are nearly 50% immigrant, they're likely talking about Swedish students, not Somali students, and the number of these high immigrant schools is very few.

Secondly, even with Finland's low immigrant numbers and many immigrants from Western societies, let's take a look at the disparity in PISA scores between Native Finns and Immigrant Finns and compare that to the Native vs Immigrant disparity in other PISA taking nations:

Why does the US have a smaller gap between Native vs Immigrant than Finland if Finland's educational techniques are so advanced?

 

[Toro]

How Does Teacher Tenure and Seniority Help Students?

It doesn't. It helps teachers.

The same way Wall Street bonuses helped market stability after the Bush Financial Crash.

Remember the argument? People were rightly upset that the same people who crashed the economy were still getting their huge bonuses, but the argument was if we don't pay them these bonuses they will leave for European, London, Asian exchanges. We would lose good people! Good people who knew what needed to be done to right the ship!

Remember that? Now just transplant that to teachers.

Oh, so by extent, the tenure and seniority argument is wrong, then.

I'm transplanting the "we need to hold on to good people" argument. People say that tenure fosters laziness but they never make that argument for executives who have been with a company for 10+ years, making millions. I do think there is a danger in it, just as there is that danger of signing a ballplayer to a big money, long-term contract. So many of them don't produce as well, because they aren't as hungry.

The average CEO tenure is four years.

Rarely does anyone in Wall Street stay in one place for a decade. Many burn out and never go back.

 

[Rikurzhen]

The group (2013) of Finnish (91.71%), Swedish (5.51%), Russian (0.75%), and Estonian (0.29%) of students together comprise 98.26% of the student population. The only black students they have come from the Somali population (0.16%). As you go down their immigrant list you see other Western nations. What we're dealing with here is, essentially, a white western, middle class population.

 

[Borillar]

MYTH:
Tenure is a lifetime job guarantee.

REALITY:
Tenure is simply a right to due process; it means that a college or university cannot fire a tenured professor without presenting evidence that the professor is incompetent or behaves unprofessionally or that an academic department needs to be closed or the school is in serious financial difficulty. Nationally, about 2 percent of tenured faculty are dismissed in a typical year.

If it is difficult --- purposely difficult --- to fire a tenured professor, it's also very hard to become one. The probationary period averages three years for community colleges and seven years at four-year colleges. This is a period of employment insecurity almost unique among U.S. professions. People denied tenure at the end of this time lose their jobs; tenure is an "up-or-out" process.

During the probationary period, almost all colleges can choose not to renew faculty contracts and terminate faculty without any reason or cause. Throughout this time, senior professors and administrators evaluate the work of new faculty-teaching, research and service before deciding whether or not to recommend tenure. The most recent survey of American faculty shows that, in a typical year, about one in five probationary faculty members was denied tenure and lost his or her job.

Faculty members remain accountable after achieving tenure. Tenured faculty at most colleges and universities are evaluated periodically-among other things, for promotion, salary increases and, in some cases, merit increases. Grant applications and articles for publication are routinely reviewed on their merit by peers in the field. If basic academic tenets and due process rights are observed, this kind of accountability is wholly appropriate. A finding of incompetence or unprofessional conduct can still result in firing.

The Truth About Tenure in Higher Education

Oh please. Tenure is about stupidly creating a level of bureaucracy that ties the schools hands in getting rid of teachers. I don't get due process if my company wants to get rid of my services (which I did get laid off in Feb, but found a better job in March) and neither should a school.

We need the best and brightest teachers in our schools. We need specialist, tutors, smaller class sizes etc and we will only get that when highway robbery teacher pensions go away (like they did in the private sector) and are converted to individual pensions like the 401K or IRA. Tenure must go away also.

If you get rid of tenure, it will just make it easy for management to fire teachers who make too much money. Instead of getting the best and brightest, you'll likely wind up with a staff of teachers who are willing to do the job for the least amount of money.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Date 2003

You think it's gotten better since then?

ROFLMAO.

Exit exams may be on their way out

Look at how fast testing changes. These are just exit exams. You want to know why there is no money in education? Pay attention to how much is spent on testing and what it actually accomplishes.

No money for education? We spend more than ever on an inflation adjusted basis.

In constant 2000-2001 dollars, we spent $3K per pupil in 1960. By 2000-2001, the per pupil amount increased to $8.8K, an increase of over 190% in CONSTANT DOLLARS.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d01/dt167.asp

Between 2000 and 2009, the CONSTANT DOLLAR spending per pupil (in 2009 dollars) increased by an other 20%, up to $10.6K.

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/expenditures/tables/table_06.asp

We spend more money now for worse results. The problem is not lack of money. The problem is lack of educational standards and rigor combined with politically correct multicultralistic pablum which pushes propaganda instead of promoting knowledge.

The problem IS "educational standards and rigor". Teaching to pass tests instead of teaching in-depth knowledge that leads to SELF knowledge and the ability to problem solve.

Incorrect.

The problem , once again, is that public schools have to accept EVERYONE and to put it bluntly, half of students in public schools are a waste of funds.

WOW. Too bad one of the most successful school systems in the world is based on equality.

Finnish Education Chief: 'We Created a School System Based on Equality'

The secret to the success of the Finnish school system is the fact that the schools are filled with Finnish students, not Somalian students.

Meanwhile, the United States has been imposing more external testing—often exacerbating differential access to curriculum—while creating more inequitable conditions in local schools. Resources for children and schools, in the form of both overall funding and the presence of trained, experienced teachers, have become more disparate in many states, thus undermining the capacity of schools to meet the outcomes that are ostensibly sought. Sahlberg notes that Finland has taken a very different path. He observes:

Let's deal with this horseshit, piece by piece.

The US has been imposing external testing BECAUSE the local control model wasn't working. Capisce?

Testing, by itself, has no effect other than to uniformly measure performance.

As for resources, we've tried many experiments. One took place in Kansas City where a judge gave school officials a BLANK CHECK to do anything and everything needed to improve minority student performance:

For decades critics of the public schools have been saying, "You can't solve educational problems by throwing money at them." The education establishment and its supporters have replied, "No one's ever tried." In Kansas City they did try. To improve the education of black students and encourage desegregation, a federal judge invited the Kansas City, Missouri, School District to come up with a cost-is-no-object educational plan and ordered local and state taxpayers to find the money to pay for it.

Kansas City spent as much as $11,700 per pupil--more money per pupil, on a cost of living adjusted basis, than any other of the 280 largest districts in the country. The money bought higher teachers' salaries, 15 new schools, and such amenities as an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animation studios, a robotics lab, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a model United Nations with simultaneous translation capability, and field trips to Mexico and Senegal. The student-teacher ratio was 12 or 13 to 1, the lowest of any major school district in the country.

The results were dismal. Test scores did not rise; the black-white gap did not diminish; and there was less, not greater, integration.

The Kansas City experiment suggests that, indeed, educational problems can't be solved by throwing money at them, that the structural problems of our current educational system are far more important than a lack of material resources, and that the focus on desegregation diverted attention from the real problem, low achievement.​

We see the same results in the new Jersey Abbott Schools, which due to State funding spend more per student than schools in rich upper-class districts. Even in the stellar schools, like Princeton High School, where black university professors send their kids:

An uneasy amalgam of pride and discontent, Caroline Mitchell sat amid the balloons and beach chairs on the front lawn of Princeton High School, watching the Class of 2004 graduate. Her pride was for the seniors' average SAT score of 1237, third-highest in the state, and their admission to elite universities like Harvard, Yale and Duke. As president of the high school alumni association and community liaison for the school district, Ms. Mitchell deserved to bask in the tradition of public-education excellence.

Discontent, though, was what she felt about Blake, her own son. He was receiving his diploma on this June afternoon only after years of struggle - the failed English class in ninth grade, the science teacher who said he was capable only of C's, the assignment to a remedial "basic skills" class. Even at that, Ms. Mitchell realized, Blake had fared better than several friends who were nowhere to be seen in the procession of gowns and mortarboards. They were headed instead for summer school.

"I said to myself: 'Oh, no. Please, no,' " Ms. Mitchell recalled. "I was so hurt. These were bright kids. This shouldn't have been happening."

It did not escape Ms. Mitchell's perception that her son and most of those faltering classmates were black. They were the evidence of a prosperous, accomplished school district's dirty little secret, a racial achievement gap that has been observed, acknowledged and left uncorrected for decades. Now that pattern just may have to change under the pressure of the federal No Child Left Behind law.

Several months after Blake graduated, Princeton High School (and thus the district as a whole) ran afoul of the statute for the first time, based on the lagging scores of African-American students on a standardized English test given to 11th graders. Last month, the school was cited for the second year in a row, this time because 37 percent of black students failed to meet standards in English, and 55 percent of blacks and 40 percent of Hispanics failed in math.

One of the standard complaints about No Child Left Behind by its critics in public education is that it punishes urban schools that are chronically underfinanced and already contending with a concentration of poor, nonwhite, bilingual and special-education pupils. Princeton could hardly be more different. It is an Ivy League town with a minority population of slightly more than 10 percent and per-student spending well above the state average. The high school sends 94 percent of its graduates to four-year colleges and offers 29 different Advanced Placement courses. Over all, 98 percent of Princeton High School students exceed the math and English standards required by No Child Left Behind.​

When we aggregate this phenomena of rich black parents having children who underperform at school up the the national level, this is what we see:

The children of black executives, black physicians, black judges, the upper class backs, who make more than $200,000 per year, are performing on the SAT almost at par with the children of poor white families where the family income is less than $20,000 per year. Also keep in mind that the SAT OVER-predicts black performance during first year university. Over-predicts, so the issue of the SAT being structurally biased against blacks is now invalidated.

So high teacher pay, small class sizes, excellent school environments, upper class upbringing and nothing closes the gap.

 

[Synthaholic]

That's not true.

What it boils down too is you folks are trying to eviscerate the public school system.

It's pretty deliberate and apparent.

It also has terrible ramifications for the social mobility of people born into poverty or the low middle class.

Incorrect. I favor the public school system. That has nothing to to with the FACT that teacher tenure makes it very hard to get rid of bad teachers.

Look at all the teachers in NYC who can't be fired because they have tenure , but NO ONE wants them teaching children so they sit in a room all day getting paid just to show up. That's bullshit and anyone with a functioning brain would agree.

Why isn't the solution to recognize and fire the bad teachers before they reach tenure?

 

[Synthaholic]

How Does Teacher Tenure and Seniority Help Students?

It doesn't. It helps teachers.

The same way Wall Street bonuses helped market stability after the Bush Financial Crash.

Remember the argument? People were rightly upset that the same people who crashed the economy were still getting their huge bonuses, but the argument was if we don't pay them these bonuses they will leave for European, London, Asian exchanges. We would lose good people! Good people who knew what needed to be done to right the ship!

Remember that? Now just transplant that to teachers.

Oh, so by extent, the tenure and seniority argument is wrong, then.

I'm transplanting the "we need to hold on to good people" argument. People say that tenure fosters laziness but they never make that argument for executives who have been with a company for 10+ years, making millions. I do think there is a danger in it, just as there is that danger of signing a ballplayer to a big money, long-term contract. So many of them don't produce as well, because they aren't as hungry.

The average CEO tenure is four years.

Rarely does anyone in Wall Street stay in one place for a decade. Many burn out and never go back.

Then all that talk in 2009 about retaining good people and not letting them leave for London is bullshit?

That's what I said back then!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your author is a little known Cato think tank hack, and the hit piece is from 1998.

Go look at your calendar.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Your author is a little known Cato think tank hack, and the hit piece is from 1998.

Go look at your calendar.

Hey, I'd be happy to report the same experiment in your home town. You go and convince your school district to sock all your neighbors with massive increases in school taxes so that your district achieves the highest spending per student in the nation and reduces your student-teacher ratio down to 12:1 and we can measure the outcomes.

You think that because this happened in the past that this history is invalid? Didn't you start another thread about what should be taught in history classes? By your comments here I take it that your position is that NOTHING should be taught in history classes because all of history is irrelevant.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

A California court struck down teacher tenure and seniority provisions. The unions, as expected, are protesting.

Teachers unions are fighting back against a California ruling that gutted two things they hold sacred: tenure laws and seniority provisions. But they face an uphill battle to reshape their image as opponents—and even some allies—say they are standing in the way of needed improvements in education. ...

Teachers union critics say the tenure and seniority laws that were hobbled by the June ruling protect longtime educators who are ineffective while more proficient ones with less experience face layoffs first. ...

The developments have left the nation's two largest teachers unions in a quandary: how to alter the perception that they are obstacles to change while holding on to principles such as tenure that their members demand.

The unions used their recent national conventions to respond and have notched up the rhetoric. The National Education Association, the largest teachers union at about three million members, elected a new president who called certain teacher-performance metrics such as test scores "the mark of the devil."

The American Federation of Teachers, the second-biggest union at about 1.6 million members, backs a new group, Democrats for Public Education, which advocates for the union's causes. "Sadly, what has changed is that rather than helping teachers help kids, some…are suing to take away the voices of teachers," said AFT President Randi Weingarten. ...

In the California case, a state judge in June struck down certain protections for teachers, including tenure after about two years on the job and seniority protections in layoffs. He found in the case, Vergara v. California, that the measures can entrench unqualified teachers, preventing minority and low-income students from receiving the equitable public education required by the state's constitution.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/teachers-unions-under-fire-1409874404?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories

I certainly appreciate the work teachers do, and I have no problems with giving teachers protections against rash terminations, but I'm not sure how teacher tenure and seniority rules help kids.

It's pretty simple. It's experience. Teaching is not a McDonalds job or even an assembly line job. Kids are not cheeseburgers.

Well, if we keep up this tenure and seniority thing, school districts will replace teachers with robots too. McDonald's style.

You joke, but that is where it is heading. Like I said, why hire a Russian teacher for a few kids at $60K a year or whatever, when instead we

That's not true.

What it boils down too is you folks are trying to eviscerate the public school system.

It's pretty deliberate and apparent.

It also has terrible ramifications for the social mobility of people born into poverty or the low middle class.

Incorrect. I favor the public school system. That has nothing to to with the FACT that teacher tenure makes it very hard to get rid of bad teachers.

Look at all the teachers in NYC who can't be fired because they have tenure , but NO ONE wants them teaching children so they sit in a room all day getting paid just to show up. That's bullshit and anyone with a functioning brain would agree.

Why isn't the solution to recognize and fire the bad teachers before they reach tenure?

Of course that is ideal, but the reality is many teachers (just like any other profession) get comfortable and just stop trying as hard, ESPECIALLY once they reach a magical time when firing them becomes all but impossible.

Only teachers and their unions profit from teacher tenure.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Your author is a little known Cato think tank hack, and the hit piece is from 1998.

Go look at your calendar.

Hey, I'd be happy to report the same experiment in your home time. You go and convince your school district to sock all your neighbors with massive increases in school taxes so that you're district achieves the highest spending per student in the nation and reduces your student-teacher ratio down to 12:1 and we can measure the outcomes.

You think that because this happened in the past that this history is invalid? Didn't you start another thread about what should be taught in history classes? By your comments here I take it that your position is that NOTHING should be taught in history classes because all of history is irrelevant.

We cap our classes at 20 students per teacher. PERIOD. It CAN be done at public schools, Takes someone on the school board who is willing to go through EVERY single budget item and piss some people off by taking money out of various departments but it can be done.

You want to piss parents off though, tell them the football team won't be getting new grass on the field this year because an extra teacher had to be hired. For real, it boils again down to parents.

 

[RKMBrown]

A California court struck down teacher tenure and seniority provisions. The unions, as expected, are protesting.

Teachers unions are fighting back against a California ruling that gutted two things they hold sacred: tenure laws and seniority provisions. But they face an uphill battle to reshape their image as opponents—and even some allies—say they are standing in the way of needed improvements in education. ...

Teachers union critics say the tenure and seniority laws that were hobbled by the June ruling protect longtime educators who are ineffective while more proficient ones with less experience face layoffs first. ...

The developments have left the nation's two largest teachers unions in a quandary: how to alter the perception that they are obstacles to change while holding on to principles such as tenure that their members demand.

The unions used their recent national conventions to respond and have notched up the rhetoric. The National Education Association, the largest teachers union at about three million members, elected a new president who called certain teacher-performance metrics such as test scores "the mark of the devil."

The American Federation of Teachers, the second-biggest union at about 1.6 million members, backs a new group, Democrats for Public Education, which advocates for the union's causes. "Sadly, what has changed is that rather than helping teachers help kids, some…are suing to take away the voices of teachers," said AFT President Randi Weingarten. ...

In the California case, a state judge in June struck down certain protections for teachers, including tenure after about two years on the job and seniority protections in layoffs. He found in the case, Vergara v. California, that the measures can entrench unqualified teachers, preventing minority and low-income students from receiving the equitable public education required by the state's constitution.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/teachers-unions-under-fire-1409874404?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories

I certainly appreciate the work teachers do, and I have no problems with giving teachers protections against rash terminations, but I'm not sure how teacher tenure and seniority rules help kids.

Tenure is used to separate government workers from non-government workers. A math/science/engineering major with 25 years teaching experience in corporate environments has to start at an entry level salary to teach high school math. Tenure is the tool unions use to lock outsiders out and protect the union members from having to be productive and compete with anyone outside the ranks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rik, thank you for admitting your failure.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The following is not a truism: "Tenure is the tool unions use to lock outsiders out and protect the union members from having to be productive and compete with anyone outside the ranks."

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The following is not a truism: "Tenure is the tool unions use to lock outsiders out and protect the union members from having to be productive and compete with anyone outside the ranks."

no, but the following IS a truism

"Tenure is a tool used to teacher's unions used to make firing teachers who have earned tenure as difficult as possible"

 

[Rikurzhen]

A California court struck down teacher tenure and seniority provisions. The unions, as expected, are protesting.

Teachers unions are fighting back against a California ruling that gutted two things they hold sacred: tenure laws and seniority provisions. But they face an uphill battle to reshape their image as opponents—and even some allies—say they are standing in the way of needed improvements in education. ...

Teachers union critics say the tenure and seniority laws that were hobbled by the June ruling protect longtime educators who are ineffective while more proficient ones with less experience face layoffs first. ...

The developments have left the nation's two largest teachers unions in a quandary: how to alter the perception that they are obstacles to change while holding on to principles such as tenure that their members demand.

The unions used their recent national conventions to respond and have notched up the rhetoric. The National Education Association, the largest teachers union at about three million members, elected a new president who called certain teacher-performance metrics such as test scores "the mark of the devil."

The American Federation of Teachers, the second-biggest union at about 1.6 million members, backs a new group, Democrats for Public Education, which advocates for the union's causes. "Sadly, what has changed is that rather than helping teachers help kids, some…are suing to take away the voices of teachers," said AFT President Randi Weingarten. ...

In the California case, a state judge in June struck down certain protections for teachers, including tenure after about two years on the job and seniority protections in layoffs. He found in the case, Vergara v. California, that the measures can entrench unqualified teachers, preventing minority and low-income students from receiving the equitable public education required by the state's constitution.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/teachers-unions-under-fire-1409874404?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories

I certainly appreciate the work teachers do, and I have no problems with giving teachers protections against rash terminations, but I'm not sure how teacher tenure and seniority rules help kids.

Tenure is used to separate government workers from non-government workers. A math/science/engineering major with 25 years teaching experience in corporate environments has to start at an entry level salary to teach high school math. Tenure is the tool unions use to lock outsiders out and protect the union members from having to be productive and compete with anyone outside the ranks.

I recall reading a story, sorry no link, about a math professor who retired early and then wanted to teach at the high school in the town he retired to and they couldn't hire him because he didn't have state certification as a teacher.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Rik, thank you for admitting your failure.

History is for dummies, right Starkey? That's why you oppose the teaching of history, right?