Forums

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Well, when I implied it was difficult to get rid of bad teachers here are some of the responses:


Adder: When you said it was hard to get rid of teachers at LA unified: I read this and surmise that (a) they aren't trying, or (b) they initiate dismissal proceedings and that teachers have some reason to quite before the proceedings are concluded.

GGG: How many cases were brought? How many teachers resigned rather than fight a case? Maybe the problem is with administrators rather than the union?

GGG: Spanky, you were citing articles by paid conservative hacks that give no sources but lots of opinion, of course we're going to look at their credentials!Those weren't arguments, they were conclusions - you have one citation that you are very excited about - one teacher fired through the process in 10 years. Can you find me an original source, not an op-ed without footnotes or an editorial, but an actual verifiable sources, that gives that fact?

GGG: Dissent. There are generally two protections teachers get: one under their union contract, one under civil service. True "Tenure" is relatively uncommon in K-12; what exists instead is a seniority based system (last hired, first fired) to deal with downsizing that generally comes out of the union contracts and a civil service system that provides a required process for terminating an employee. It's civil service that is the issue in a hiring for failure to do one's job. The union might send a lawyer to represent the teacher, but the union contract is unlikely to be at issue.

(For example, the Mass statute at issue provides "A teacher with professional teacher status [what Spanky thinks of as tenure], pursuant to section forty-one, shall not be dismissed except for inefficiency, incompetency, incapacity, conduct unbecoming a teacher, insubordination or failure on the part of the teacher to satisfy teacher performance standards developed pursuant to section thirty-eight of this chapter or other just cause. " And there's an arbitration process to figure out these things. You see - they can be fired for most of the things Spanky says they can't be fired for, provided the superintendent can prove them.

Adder after I said it was hard to fire teachers: quote:
________________________________________
I have heard about the problems with firing a Los Angeles School Teacher.
________________________________________

I have heard the exact same complaints, from the exact set of republican talking points, in many other jurisdictions. Why do you think California is different?


Adder: But I am not sure that reduce job protections for teachers is necessary to do it. In part because I don't think the problem is as widespread as you think it is.

Adder: 1. Tenure. This is an ancient tradition originally intended to protect academic freedom (you know, the idea that you can explore and express ideas that aren't politically popular at the moment). It does seem a bit anachronistic for K-12 educators today given that we don't expect them to research and publish, but you are full of shit when you suggest that teachers with tenure can't be fired.

Again, you can fire them if you actually take the time to document their failures. Personally, I know of at least one tenured teacher who was forced into retirement for an inability to control her class.

Adder: 3. They have always been able to fire bad teachers. To extent that bad teachers are even a statistically relevant problem (they likely are not), there is no union system in the world that provides a bar to firing people who are demonstrably incompetent.

This might prove an illustrative example. You posted this in response to Ty asking you who said it was easy to fire teachers. Please highlight for me where in any of the materials that you quoted from me or G3 where either of us said it was "easy" to fire teachers.

(hint: the "find" function works great for this)