California court rules tenure unconstitutional

in california hiring and firing is done soley by seniority. what they SHOULD be doing is firing the bad teacher making $80K a year and replacing him with the young eager teacher making $50K a year, but that's not what the union allows. I have a buddy who has tenure AND is a PE teacher (something mandated by the state) and he is completely unfirable. he's been on workers comp a dozen times, calls in sick at least once a month because he's hung over, etc etc and he's making $60K a year and will retire at 55 with 80% of his last years salary for life. he of course feels like he's underpaid.

 

the intention was to protect the member of the union from being fired. if you are a superintendant and you see someone who is horrible at his job what are you going to do? go through the huge pain in the ass to get his ass fired or just transfer him out of your school? why put your ass on the line for that? in particular given the fact you have a cush job. there could be no other consequence for tenure.

 

I'm saying it wouldn't be a smart move for good grace in the community for their career to fire well thought of teachers. Personally I think it would be a [penis] move, but I don't think we need rules against that

 

private schools don't have tenure and they sure as hell don't fire long tenured teachers people like. and these days public schools require so much outside fundraising from the parents it makes little sense to piss them off. part of the reason we have major grade inflation.

 

I'm not even going to bother addressing your first point. It's an exercise in futility.


Because it's the superintendent's job to do that?

 

The unions job is to protect it's members. when i worked for a union company i had to file 3 seperate complaints before i could get an employee fired. all documented. all requiring tons of legwork by me including interviews by the employee and myself where he could feel free to shit on me with impunity (one guy claimed I took off days and didn't report them and this was investigated). why do you think they require that? what possible other purpose could it serve than to make it harder to fire people and make it less likely i will go through the trouble?

It's human nature to not want to involve yourself in a shitstorm. and as i said above it can blow back on you easily. if you yourself have tenure and have a cush job and know you are about to retire with a six figure pension are you going to risk it by upsetting the apple cart? of course not.

 

I agree, and I'm a teacher.

This is just my opinion, but the way I look at it - and I could be dead wrong - but if you are doing your job and doing a good job as a teacher, then you shouldn't have to worry about whether or not you have tenure. Tenure gives many teachers this aura of invincibility, like they can't be touched and are enabled to rock the boat a bit more. To hell with that.

 

it's human nature to take the foot off the gas pedal once you know no one is behind you.

 

There's a great big world outside of Cali. Some directors in TN don't make six figures.

 

same rules apply just smaller stakes.

 

Sounds like to me the principal and the counselor chose well. Always best to catch the crest of the wave.

 

Haha

 

"Insufficient teaching" sounds rather malleable.

I honestly don't have a strong opinion on this issue, but if the idea is to prevent gossiping vessels of estrogen from conspiring to fire the pretty chick because they're jealous the football coach looks at her ass when he passes by in the hallway, then "insufficient teaching" might not cut it.

 

You know, there's an interesting theme developing.

Of the several teachers here, each whom I would think most would easily consider as being "good teachers", only one has expressed any support for it, and even then, admits that its not currently being applied as it should be.

So, if the "good teachers" think its unnecessary / misapplied....what are the sort of teachers who believe the opposite?

 

I went to a private law school, and dem profs definitely had tenure.

 

A question for any of the teachers here who are opposed to tenure, or believe it unnecessary:

What would happen if you expressed this sentiment in the teacher's lounge?
What about if you stood up at the next teacher's union meeting, and suggested it?
What if you attempted to run for one of the elected positions in the union, on a platform that included a provision to end tenure?

Honest questions, as I really don't know. Would more people agree with you, than not? And if not, what would be their reasoning for its continued support? I'm seriously trying to see some credible means of reasonably defending it, but can't think of any on my own.
So, I ask.

 

[video=youtube;kIfOjkB17BA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIfOjkB17BA[/video]

 

I've never really concerned myself with what others think about my views. If I did, I would never post on political matters here.

And to be crystal clear, I don't think tenure should be a security blanket. Do your job or be fired.

 

i'm talking high schools. not colleges

 

in my experience it's a strong belief that they are doing essentially charity work for far less money than they deserve and therefore deserve any perk they currently have.