Teachers, Tenure, and Performance (1 Viewer)

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Proposition 74 on the California ballot:

PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS. WAITING PERIOD FOR PERMANENT STATUS. DISMISSAL INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Increases probationary period for public school teachers from two to five years. Modifies the process by which school boards can dismiss a teaching employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations.

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov05/voter_info_pdf/entire74.pdf

The unions are freaking out over this one. That's always fun.

Should any teacher, of any grade level, have tenure? Should tenure be limited to high school (grade 9 thru 12)? Should anyone employed in a teaching capacity at a publicly funded school have tenure, including state colleges? Or should it be a limited form of tenure, where minimum performance standards must be met?

I vote for "No Tenure for publicly funded schools of any kind", if you must know.

 

[jallman]

I vote wholeheartedly against tenure. "Tenure" is like saying, "you have a right to teach your philosophies against what history teaches". In college, I saw so many professors teach the histories of the middle ages and the renaissance play the history of the time down to meet text book requirements. I've seen Vlad made out to be a hero, Shakespeare be made out to be a hetero, and King Richard made out to be a crusader. All of these false. And all because of tenured professors who dont want to teach the truth. Tenure is the way of academia to add to the political philosophy of the time...a tool. Do away with tenure, and you only have left the progressive idealogies of the time to usher in a new age of thought.

 

[TimmyBoy]

My experience as a student when I was in college was that it allowed ineffective teachers to remain. One of the reasons they have tenure is prevent political pressures from getting a teacher fired, but the big problem with that is allowing ineffective teachers to stay. I think some compromise should be worked out to prevent political pressures from getting a teacher fired and yet on the same token, a lazy, ineffective teacher can be fired.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

One of the reasons they have tenure is prevent political pressures from getting a teacher fired, but the big problem with that is allowing ineffective teachers to stay. I think some compromise should be worked out to prevent political pressures from getting a teacher fired and yet on the same token, a lazy, ineffective teacher can be fired.

So...what sort of political and controversial things are they teaching in the first grade, anyhow?

Teachers all the way up through high school aren't supposed to be controversial. They're supposed to teach the basics. It was recently reported that 20% of California high school seniors failed a comprehensive exam that was geared to the eighth grade level. Those students won't be getting diplomas.

Why isn't the exam geared for 12th grade levels of competency? Shouldn't the state save 30% of it's budget by giving the 8th graders diplomas and casting them loose?

And one of the reasons why the education is so bad in this state is the union mandated stupid tenure.

 

[TimmyBoy]

So...what sort of political and controversial things are they teaching in the first grade, anyhow?

Teachers all the way up through high school aren't supposed to be controversial. They're supposed to teach the basics. It was recently reported that 20% of California high school seniors failed a comprehensive exam that was geared to the eighth grade level. Those students won't be getting diplomas.

Why isn't the exam geared for 12th grade levels of competency? Shouldn't the state save 30% of it's budget by giving the 8th graders diplomas and casting them loose?

And one of the reasons why the education is so bad in this state is the union mandated stupid tenure.

Scarecrow, when you write software designed to build nuclear weapons that can blow whole countries clean from the map, you can come talk to me about education.

 

[DeeJayH]

death to tenure
Merit pay sounds good
weed out the slackers and extremists from all academia

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Scarecrow, when you write software designed to build nuclear weapons that can blow whole countries clean from the map, you can come talk to me about education.

If you live in India, why the hell do you care about American troops and the US of A?

You just made your positions a whole heck of a lot clearer.

 

[Hoot]

The problem is we do not have as many experienced teachers as we once had...this was an article in today's paper, nor do we have as many men teaching as we once had, nor do we have anything close to equality as far as race...I think the article stated that 35-40% of school children are of non-caucasian races, yet non-caucasian teachers make up less then 5% of teaching professionals.

Schools believe they can save money by hiring young, inexperienced teachers, for less pay, and our children suffer as a result.

Tenure may have its problems, but its just about the only way we can assure our children are being taught by teachers who have at least 5 years or more of teaching experience.

You want a revolving door on teachers? Fine...our children will pay the ultimate price.

 

[DeeJayH]

The problem is we do not have as many experienced teachers as we once had...this was an article in today's paper, nor do we have as many men teaching as we once had, nor do we have anything close to equality as far as race...I think the article stated that 35-40% of school children are of non-caucasian races, yet non-caucasian teachers make up less then 5% of teaching professionals.

Schools believe they can save money by hiring young, inexperienced teachers, for less pay, and our children suffer as a result.

Tenure may have its problems, but its just about the only way we can assure our children are being taught by teachers who have at least 5 years or more of teaching experience.

You want a revolving door on teachers? Fine...our children will pay the ultimate price.

just how does tenure assure quality experienced teachers?

 

[debate_junkie]

The problem is we do not have as many experienced teachers as we once had...this was an article in today's paper, nor do we have as many men teaching as we once had, nor do we have anything close to equality as far as race...I think the article stated that 35-40% of school children are of non-caucasian races, yet non-caucasian teachers make up less then 5% of teaching professionals.

Schools believe they can save money by hiring young, inexperienced teachers, for less pay, and our children suffer as a result.

Tenure may have its problems, but its just about the only way we can assure our children are being taught by teachers who have at least 5 years or more of teaching experience.

You want a revolving door on teachers? Fine...our children will pay the ultimate price.

Our children are already paying the ultimate price. Teacher's are no longer JUST teachers anymore. Most of our schools are being held hostage by kids who's parent's don't give a damn, and the school administration is being forced, in most cases, to dole out the education and the discipline. Look at the state of our school districts, WE the taxpayers are funding breakfast, we're funding before and after school programs, we're also funding metal detectors, drug sniffing dogs and police presence in our schools.

The quality of teachers is decreasing because teacher's are fearing their own safety. They don't WANT to teach in an environment that makes learning impossible. They don't WANT to worry which of their students has a weapon today. They don't WANT to be caught in the crossfire of another Columbine, and I don't blame them. We're blaming teachers and tenure for the mess within our schools, how about we start blaming parents? Why should we the taxpayer pay for a school for kids who refuse to go? Why aren't parent's held more responsible for that? Maybe then there wouldn't be such a truancy problem.

This notion that the school HAS to be a second guardian to our kids is f-ing ridiculous. I am active in my kids schooling... and I do work. My husband, as much as he hates it, works third shift.. why? So someone is ALWAYS here with the kids, and so someone is always available if a call comes home from the school. My kids know without a shadow of a doubt, if they don't tote the straight and narrow in school, there is NOTHING the school could do to them that would be worse than what they would get at home.

Parent's need to be the FIRST responsibility in how their kids conduct themselves in school. then, maybe then, we'll start attracting teachers who can actually teach, and not play referee all damn day.

 

[Deegan]

This is a huge issue for me, and I am always amazed at what is acceptable teaching practice these days. I just read an article about a teacher who called for "the extermination of white people" and was allowed to take on another quarter of students!:roll: Here is a good place to start, if you are as concerned as I am.....

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/

 

[The Mark]

Our children are already paying the ultimate price. Teacher's are no longer JUST teachers anymore. Most of our schools are being held hostage by kids who's parent's don't give a damn, and the school administration is being forced, in most cases, to dole out the education and the discipline. Look at the state of our school districts, WE the taxpayers are funding breakfast, we're funding before and after school programs, we're also funding metal detectors, drug sniffing dogs and police presence in our schools.

And all because some parents don't want to think about their kids for most of the day, IMO.

The quality of teachers is decreasing because teacher's are fearing their own safety. They don't WANT to teach in an environment that makes learning impossible. They don't WANT to worry which of their students has a weapon today. They don't WANT to be caught in the crossfire of another Columbine, and I don't blame them. We're blaming teachers and tenure for the mess within our schools, how about we start blaming parents? Why should we the taxpayer pay for a school for kids who refuse to go? Why aren't parent's held more responsible for that? Maybe then there wouldn't be such a truancy problem.

Indeed. The parents should be responsible. And I just had a thought. Take the ID trial as an example. IMO, it is not the parents responsibility to change what the school teaches, but to teach their child what they want him/her to believe. I mean, that is what has been going on for years! If some parent wanted to have their child believe in ID or the like, they would take them aside at home after school and explain the opposing view.

And about weapons and drugs in schools. The parents should be responsible for teaching their children what they should and should not do. If this was accomplished in all cases, we would have no guns OR drugs in schools (unless the parents wanted their kids to do such things...).

This notion that the school HAS to be a second guardian to our kids is f-ing ridiculous. I am active in my kids schooling... and I do work. My husband, as much as he hates it, works third shift.. why? So someone is ALWAYS here with the kids, and so someone is always available if a call comes home from the school. My kids know without a shadow of a doubt, if they don't tote the straight and narrow in school, there is NOTHING the school could do to them that would be worse than what they would get at home.

It sounds like you are very good parents.

Parent's need to be the FIRST responsibility in how their kids conduct themselves in school. then, maybe then, we'll start attracting teachers who can actually teach, and not play referee all damn day.

Agreed. If a child gets into trouble at school, the first thing that should happen is that the school contacts the parents.

 

[debate_junkie]

Indeed. The parents should be responsible. And I just had a thought. Take the ID trial as an example. IMO, it is not the parents responsibility to change what the school teaches, but to teach their child what they want him/her to believe. I mean, that is what has been going on for years! If some parent wanted to have their child believe in ID or the like, they would take them aside at home after school and explain the opposing view.

It's funny you mention that. I work in downtown Harrisburg, not far from the Federal Court house in which that ID trial is going on. While, I don't understand all the logistics of the case, as I've been too busy with other relevant news than to keep up with the Dover School District, it appears to me the parents are somewhat grounded in their thinking. From what I understand, the teaching of ID is intended to say that the gaps in which evolution is "faulty" are easily explained by a touch of a "higher power".

While evolution is but a theory, proven only in bits by scientific fact, I, personally, could not approve the teaching of something that is not based on fact, but only on the belief of some. Science, we teach our children, is factual. Until then, we call it theories, that are based on idea's or belief's unproven. There is nothing to even remotely prove a "higher power" without inserting biblical reference, and well... the line is crossed. So that's my take on ID.. I think the school district has gone a bit far by FORCING it to be done in biology class. Had they offered it as an elective, giving students the option of taking... they could have avoided this entirely.

 

[Hoot]

just how does tenure assure quality experienced teachers?

I never said it did. But tenure does protect teachers from unfair discrimination..for instance..if they are involved in union activities, and tenure also protects the best and brightest of teachers, who may just decide to stay in teaching if they know their job is secure.

Of course, with tenure, you're going to have some mediocre teachers slip through the cracks, but any administration can fire a teacher if the evidence of wrongdoing is clear and concrete. And as I already said, tenure protects teachers from being fired for unjust reasons simply because the administraton wants cheap labor in the form of new teachers.

How many professionals would want to consider a career in teaching if they knew their job was constantly at risk?

As far as parents...that's a whole 'nother topic...totally and completely unrelated to a discussion about tenure.

 

[DeeJayH]

I never said it did. But tenure does protect teachers from unfair discrimination..for instance..if they are involved in union activities, and tenure also protects the best and brightest of teachers, who may just decide to stay in teaching if they know their job is secure.

Of course, with tenure, you're going to have some mediocre teachers slip through the cracks, but any administration can fire a teacher if the evidence of wrongdoing is clear and concrete. And as I already said, tenure protects teachers from being fired for unjust reasons simply because the administraton wants cheap labor in the form of new teachers.

How many professionals would want to consider a career in teaching if they knew their job was constantly at risk?

As far as parents...that's a whole 'nother topic...totally and completely unrelated to a discussion about tenure.

Welcome to the United States
where you are evaluated on performance, unless you are a civil servant
Anyone should lose their job if they are incompetent.
as far as higher less qualified people for less money, that just means the 'powers that be' are not doing the right thing, and the parents/community need to apply pressure

 

[DeeJayH]

It's funny you mention that. I work in downtown Harrisburg, not far from the Federal Court house in which that ID trial is going on. While, I don't understand all the logistics of the case, as I've been too busy with other relevant news than to keep up with the Dover School District, it appears to me the parents are somewhat grounded in their thinking. From what I understand, the teaching of ID is intended to say that the gaps in which evolution is "faulty" are easily explained by a touch of a "higher power".

While evolution is but a theory, proven only in bits by scientific fact, I, personally, could not approve the teaching of something that is not based on fact, but only on the belief of some. Science, we teach our children, is factual. Until then, we call it theories, that are based on idea's or belief's unproven. There is nothing to even remotely prove a "higher power" without inserting biblical reference, and well... the line is crossed. So that's my take on ID.. I think the school district has gone a bit far by FORCING it to be done in biology class. Had they offered it as an elective, giving students the option of taking... they could have avoided this entirely.

Therefor, children should not be taught the big bang either
by your own admission there is no proof.
its just a best guess
Therefore no creationism, no ID, no Evolution
because there is NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF for any of them
end of problem!:2wave: