Which is bad news for kids and citizens, as teacher "tenure" actually protects THEIR interests.

And note how the presumption of innocence is lost from sentence one to sentence two.


1. "Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday signed into law AB 215, which is aimed at making it easier for districts to discipline or dismiss teachers, especially those accused of egregious misconduct. "


2. "The bill by Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, D-Alamo, streamlines the discipline and appeals process by expediting and prioritizing cases of (insert "alleged" here) serious misconduct, those involving (insert "alleged" here) sexual abuse, child abuse and certain drug offenses. It fast-tracks all other dismissal appeals."


That didn't take long.

Not sure what that means.

They're trying it out in NYC under the new contract.

ATR's ( unassigned, usually veteran teachers) can now be fired on the basis of two principal complaints of "unprofessional conduct" and a one-day kangaroo court.

Sellout union made it happen!

Tenure protects due process. On the other hand it should not take 1 year or two years or longer to fire a teacher who is either a criminal or totally negligent of their job.

Does that mean that this article will be updated tonight? I hope so; I would like more details.

If they had policed their own ranks, set up their own process, this would have been unnecessary. I support unions in general, but the teacher's unions are a joke.
It looks as if this bill protects due process and most of the benefits of tenure.
Teachers unions need to step up and take an active role in their craft, rather than just collecting dues from their members to engage in contract negotiations that amount to nothing as they watch their industry descend into a painful satire of real education.
Demand real pay for professionals and back it up with real consequences for those members who dishonor the profession.

Last edited Thu Jun 26, 2014, 09:57 AM - Edit history (1)

California Teachers Association.

I was a member of the TSTA (Texas) and the MEA (Maine), and they certainly never policed their own ranks, adopted minimum content requirements, or enforced professional standards.

It was always about collecting dues, distributing the coffee mugs in their stupid welcome bags, begging for teensy weensy raises and throwing the newest teachers under the bus when a RIF occurred.

Maybe it is different in California, but if this is the awful thing some education people seem to portray, then where is the CTA calling for strikes, or sickouts or a work stoppage?

<Android listens, but only detects the sounds of crickets>

>>>never policed their own ranks,>>>>

and this:

>>>>adopted minimum content requirements,>>>>

Also:

>>>newest teachers under the bus when a RIF occurred. >>>

"RIF"?

>>>, then where is the CTA calling for strikes, or sickouts or a work stoppage? >>>

It's illegal to strike here. I don't know about CAL, but I suspect it's a more complicated question than you imply.

If you're wondering why the unions aren't more aggressive, I can save you the trouble: it's because the leadership benefits ( i.e. materially) from the status quo.
At least UFT and AFT. In other words, the leadership is bought off.

This is a given that savvy observers take for granted.

How you translate that into: "it's therefore a good idea to get rid of teacher tenure".... that I don't know.


Perhaps you can explain.

"never policed their own ranks" - This means the union should kick out incompetent teachers, teachers who lack the content knowledge for their subject, teachers who engage in social promotion, teachers who are predators on students.

Adopt minimum content requirements - The profession needs to establish its own standards regarding what a teacher should know about a subject before being qualified to teach it.

RIFs and throwing new teachers under the bus - When a reduction if force occurs (RIF), the union insures that teachers lose their jobs according to seniority, without regard to skill, content knowledge, or effectiveness. The result is that some teachers (note the word "some&quot who should not be teaching keep their jobs because they have been doing it for so long, while some teachers with skill, enthusiasm and the latest content knowledge lose theirs because they are new to a district.

"then where is the CTA calling for strikes, or sickouts or a work stoppage?" - A strike is only one response. Sickouts and work stoppages are others. Teachers unions could also refuse to issue grades, or standardized tests, or take attendance (which is the metric the state uses to distribute state and federal funds).

I agree with you about the leadership benefiting from the status quo.

As far as you applying this quote to me, "it's therefore a good idea to get rid of teacher tenure", I never said that, and I would appreciate it if you would edit your post to reflect that I never said it. What I implied was that teacher tenure needs modification because it allows the few incompetent teachers to keep their positions while withholding protection from the best teachers simply because they are new to a district. Tenure in general is a good thing, as it keeps districts from firing teachers simply based on who has the largest salary or other reasons that bad management might generate. However tenure needs changes, and the California bit looks like it might be a positive step.

>>>As far as you applying this quote to me, "it's therefore a good idea to get rid of teacher tenure", I never said that, and I would appreciate it if you would edit your post to reflect that I never said it. What I implied was that teacher tenure needs modification because it allows the few incompetent teachers to keep their positions while withholding protection from the best teachers simply because they are new to a district. Tenure in general is a good thing, as it keeps districts from firing teachers simply based on who has the largest salary or other reasons that bad management might generate. However tenure needs changes, and the California bit looks like it might be a positive step.>>>>>

You never said that. I could have paraphrased, but the logical disconnect in your argument is made more salient by summarizing it with the aid of direct quotes. You've made it clear that those words are mine, not yours and I agree.

>>>>never policed their own ranks" - This means the union should kick out incompetent teachers, teachers who lack the content knowledge for their subject, teachers who engage in social promotion, teachers who are predators on students. >>>>

OK, let's think this through. As BAD as the mainline teachers unions are; ( And I believe we share this starting-off point. No?) as corrupt as they are; as rife with patronage and nepotism as they are; as nightmarishly bureaucratic as they are: You wish to now put them in charge of... in addition to everything ELSE that they do abysmally..... the "policing" of their profession.

I don't think so. Nor does anyone else who wants to avoid complete and utter dysfunction.( But ok... I'll bite; how exactly would this work? Are there parallels in other unionized industries where this has worked well?)

The gov't has one legit function in re. to the school system. That's to protect the interests of kids and families ( i.e. the citizenry.) That is the *government's* role in the process. ( And it's a LEGIT role.) Unions, we've established, are extraordinarily ineffective at virtually everything they do NOW. We don't want them deciding who's a good teacher and who's a bad teacher. The likelihood of all of the above-mentioned ills and dynamics kicking in and perverting the process is... to put it mildly... extraordinarily high.

It's really not that complicated: a fourth grade teacher is accused of , say, child molestation. The gov't, legitimately brings forth the evidence. ( If there is any.) The UNION REPRESENTS ITS MEMBER AT THAT POINT TO SEE THAT HER CONTRACTUAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS IS RESPECTED.

This is the simple, uncomplicated role of the union."Tenure" in action. If it gets more complicated... in the sense of , say, there is exculpatory evidence that favors the teacher, or flaws in the evidence presented by the gov't... it's the legit function of the union to present the exculpatory evidence and challenge the flawed evidence.

No?

Also: Unrelatedly, (but not really): you seem to have tenure confused w. seniority. New teachers who are good are sometimes ( quite rarely, in fact) laid off before more experienced teachers because of contractual seniority privileges. There are interesting arguments to be made for and against this practice ( better ones for it, actually, but naturally they don't make it as far as the tabloid media.)

In any case.. that's an entirely separate issue which has nothing to do w. tenure but is easy to conflate because the newly-hired teachers rarely have tenure. Tenure doesn't cause new hires to be laid off first ( "Last-in-first-out", we call it here.). Seniority does.

I will give this some thought.

"Monster Finds a Friend"?

Mainly experience. (eight years in the classroom over a ten year span teaching grades 7-16)

Nothing more than union busting. For shame CA. For shame.

Bill sponsored by a Dem and signed by a Dem. Ain't privatization grand?

Isn't Michele Rhee in California now?

Whether she is or not, California charter schools dumped a bundle o' dough on John Connolly in Boston's huge Mayoral primary. (Being Boston, there was only one primary as, with one exception, those running were all Dem. The purpose of the primary was to narrow the Dem field.)

When that news of "outside money" hit the fan, Connolly supposedly gave it back, but I don't believe it. Or, if he gave it back, someone more local made up the difference because his campaign was by far the best funded, as best I could tell. If I got one more Connolly campaign phone call or mailer, I was going to strangle someone. (Myself.) I kept them I would not vote for Connolly because of the charter school issue.

He lost the general to Walsh, who doesn't mind charter schools, either, but he was not as gung ho about them as Connolly and Walsh is a union guy. I don't think he'll give teachers' unions a pass, but I think he'll listen. At least I hope so.