Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It depends on what school(s) you are speaking of and it sounds like you must be a public school teacher who is a member of a union. I know that when I was a teacher with Teach for America that the public school I worked in truly fit some of their examples of horrible schools. There were teachers working that everyone knew were horrible, yet they couldn't fire them. Why does any profession truly need a union these days? Because in the case of education, they are protecting the bad teachers and penalizing the good teachers. JMHO because I lived through years of it. If you have to hide behind a union to keep your job, you aren't good enough in the first place. I can safely say that I have my job because I earned it and excel in it. There would be absolutely no benefit in being in a union and I know many others that are much happier without one.
unions don't exist solely to hide poor people behind the union. talk to anyone in construction, electrical engineering, plumbing, etc...and ask them if they would work in a building built by non-union contractors. unions are supposed to offer somewhat of a standard. if you hire an electrician that is part of the union, they are required to meet certain credentials. if you go outside the union, you don't really know what you're going to get.
the issue lies in the teachers' union. i don't know everything about it, and i'm not anti-union by any means. they have a purpose. but with teachers' unions, it really does seem incredibly difficult to terminate a poor performing teacher. also, what gives with seniority? i know this is typical of all unions, by no one should be fired or retained solely based on # of years of service. maybe it's a factor, even a large factor, but it shouldn't be the only factor.
"The teachers unions are the main reason that so many poor teachers are continuing to keep their jobs and the charter schools are exempt from those ridiculous protections, they would automatically seem better."
LOL! Spoken by someone who hasn't been in the classroom within 10 miles since they got out of High School.
Charter Schools don't even have "teachers" who have BA's. Nor do they pass background checks. So a High School grad with a criminal record can teach your kids in a charter school. Sounds great, eh?
you paint a nice picture, but i went to a college prep (private) high school that has the same (lack of) requirements for teachers as a charter school. it was one of the highest regarded schools in our section of the state.
your comment is only meant to scare people, but doesn't provide any actual facts. have teachers that passed background checks ever molested children in the classroom? have they ever attacked children?
what does this speak to the ability of the teachers of a charter school vs a regular public school?
again...i'm not pro charter school. the article in fast company i linked above contains this quote "Sadly, charters fail at similar rates to startups -- and when they do, children can be the casualties. A 2009 national study from Stanford's Center for Research on Education Outcomes found that 37% of charter-school students performed worse than their counterparts at public schools: 46% matched up, and just 17% showed clear gains."
i'm not advocating for them as the solution...but keep the discussion on point with relevant and factual information, not scare tactics.
it's absolutely painting the teachers' union in a negative light, but did the director set out to do this intentionally, or does it just happen? i'm not in the least bit anti-union, but i don't think anything said in the documentary was false. i watched with my wife, and she asked me "why do teachers get tenure?"...i don't have an answer to that question. can anyone tell me why a teacher gets tenure, in a process that's much less critical than college tenure? what's the purpose? i'm for paying teachers more money to attract better candidates. i'm not for slashing benefits (though i think some should be brought in line to modern day...maybe move away from pensions and towards 401k and matching type plans, etc). i think teachers should be treated as one of the most important professions in our country...good teachers should be rewarded nicely. bad teachers should be disciplined and terminated.
[
To understand tenure, you have to understand the history of teaching.
Quote:
New Jersey became the first state to pass tenure legislation when, in 1910, it granted fair-dismissal rights to college professors. During the suffrage movement of the 1920s — when female teachers could be fired for getting married or getting pregnant or (gasp) wearing pants — such rights were extended to elementary and high school teachers as well.
Teachers in Chicago often needed tenure because otherwise they served at the whim of the political machine. Republican? You might be fired in the city of Chicago in Daley's day without tenure.
Have an unpopular opinion? Tenure keeps the bosses from firing you for that.
Teachers in Chicago often needed tenure because otherwise they served at the whim of the political machine. Republican? You might be fired in the city of Chicago in Daley's day without tenure.
Have an unpopular opinion? Tenure keeps the bosses from firing you for that.
ok....but now since the woman's issue is pretty much solved by way of discrimination...what's the current need for tenure? NJ is an at-will state anyways I don't understand why teachers should be subject to any different rules in this day.
unions don't exist solely to hide poor people behind the union. talk to anyone in construction, electrical engineering, plumbing, etc...and ask them if they would work in a building built by non-union contractors. unions are supposed to offer somewhat of a standard. if you hire an electrician that is part of the union, they are required to meet certain credentials. if you go outside the union, you don't really know what you're going to get.
the issue lies in the teachers' union. i don't know everything about it, and i'm not anti-union by any means. they have a purpose. but with teachers' unions, it really does seem incredibly difficult to terminate a poor performing teacher. also, what gives with seniority? i know this is typical of all unions, by no one should be fired or retained solely based on # of years of service. maybe it's a factor, even a large factor, but it shouldn't be the only factor.
I know that Unions don't exist solely to hide poor people but in the case of the teachers union, that is how it ends up. Sure, Unions had a great purpose years and years ago but in the 21st century, they are hurting more workers than helping them. So many great teachers leave the industry or go to private schools and charter schools because of the insanity at public schools with seniority and union politics. Who does that end up hurting? Children in low income and at risk neighborhoods. All workers regardless of what job they are in should be rewarded first for the job they do, then seniority and never because of union membership...it shouldn't be the other way around.
ok....but now since the woman's issue is pretty much solved by way of discrimination...what's the current need for tenure? NJ is an at-will state anyways I don't understand why teachers should be subject to any different rules in this day.
Believe it or not the issues of being fired for unpopular opinions have not been solved. Of course, what the admins do is make it hell for you to work at the school if you don't agree with them.
I think tenure needs to be revised, but... we do need something to keep teachers from being arbitrarily fired without documenting that they are doing a poor job. I seriously do not want to see teachers who happen to support gay rights or abortion fired because the admins don't like it. (It does happen and in fact just recently a teacher was fired for having a bumper sticker someone disliked on her car).
Believe it or not the issues of being fired for unpopular opinions have not been solved. Of course, what the admins do is make it hell for you to work at the school if you don't agree with them.
I think tenure needs to be revised, but... we do need something to keep teachers from being arbitrarily fired without documenting that they are doing a poor job. I seriously do not want to see teachers who happen to support gay rights or abortion fired because the admins don't like it. (It does happen and in fact just recently a teacher was fired for having a bumper sticker someone disliked on her car).
Exactly, kids get away with practically anything these days.
ok....but now since the woman's issue is pretty much solved by way of discrimination...what's the current need for tenure? NJ is an at-will state anyways I don't understand why teachers should be subject to any different rules in this day.
I don't want to accuse you of being naive, but to think that tenure is not necessary tends in that direction. Discrimination against women is only one abuse that can or has occurred. Without tenure, you'd see situations where the Superintendent in a district was under constant pressure to find jobs for the family members of "important people" in his district. Politicians would constantly be approached by constituents who were out of work or going through "hard times" and would importuned to find a friend or family member a job with health insurance benefits at the school district. The high quality teacher who was "just a little different" would constantly think he could be fired at any time and he'd be right. Conformity, not quality, would become the important thing at a school. I'm saying teachers would be fired just to make to way for the people the "higher ups" wanted to give a job too.
Science teachers would think twice before they taught evolution. They know that it offends certain parents of certain students and without tenure, well their job could be gone in a flash. Health teachers would feel the same pressure to not teach students about sex and reproduction.
There is no question that teacher tenure has caused some problems. I can remember two or three teachers in high school who really should have been "moved along". One thing I wish is that existing system was used more to deal with bad teachers. Teachers, like all public employees, can be brought up on charges they are incompetent or not doing their job. Typically, such systems require that they be given an opportunity to correct "bad teaching" before they are let go. Its my observation that even when it should, school administration fails to pursue the process necessary to discipline, correct, and when necessary, terminate bad teachers. Improving this system (and demanding accountability from administration) should be our goal. Not eliminating the whole tenure process.
I don't want to accuse you of being naive, but to think that tenure is not necessary tends in that direction. Discrimination against women is only one abuse that can or has occurred. Without tenure, you'd see situations where the Superintendent in a district was under constant pressure to find jobs for the family members of "important people" in his district. Politicians would constantly be approached by constituents who were out of work or going through "hard times" and would importuned to find a friend or family member a job with health insurance benefits at the school district. The high quality teacher who was "just a little different" would constantly think he could be fired at any time and he'd be right. Conformity, not quality, would become the important thing at a school. I'm saying teachers would be fired just to make to way for the people the "higher ups" wanted to give a job too.
Science teachers would think twice before they taught evolution. They know that it offends certain parents of certain students and without tenure, well their job could be gone in a flash. Health teachers would feel the same pressure to not teach students about sex and reproduction.
There is no question that teacher tenure has caused some problems. I can remember two or three teachers in high school who really should have been "moved along". One thing I wish is that existing system was used more to deal with bad teachers. Teachers, like all public employees, can be brought up on charges they are incompetent or not doing their job. Typically, such systems require that they be given an opportunity to correct "bad teaching" before they are let go. Its my observation that even when it should, school administration fails to pursue the process necessary to discipline, correct, and when necessary, terminate bad teachers. Improving this system (and demanding accountability from administration) should be our goal. Not eliminating the whole tenure process.
I have been warned to cross my t's and dot my i's until I tenure. Just few years ago an untenured teacher was let go because he went to the same bar a parent went to with their child (the bar is in a pizzeria and, from what I was told, the teacher was behaving just fine. Just sitting at the bar having a few drinks with friends.). The parent was upset that the child saw their teacher at a bar and went to the school board and demanded the teacher be fired. Unfotunately, for the teacher, it was easier to let the teacher go than deal with the angry parent so the teacher's contract was not renewed the next year. I've been told that if I want to party to drive FAR FAR AWAY before stopping at a bar to avoid being seen by a parent. Being seen drinking is a no no in my district. Even being seen buying a six pack at a store is a no no. It doesn't matter that it's legal and I have every right to do what I want with my time off.
Until you tenure, all it takes is ticking off the wrong parent to lose your job. How can you teach knowing that no matter how many years you've been at the job one parent who doesn't like your teaching can make enough waves to get you fired? I figure I'll be lucky if I make it to my 4th year (we tenure in our 4th year) without ticking off a parent. I don't think I could take knowing that at any time in my career all I'd have to do is tick off the wrong person to lose my job. I need more security than that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can safely say that I have my job because I earned it and excel in it. There would be absolutely no benefit in being in a union and I know many others that are much happier without one.
