Scott Walker and Academic Tenure

longknife

Diamond Member
Sep 21, 2012
42,221
13,088
2,250
Sin City
Although it's only in Wisconsin right now, the mere thought of this being revoked will cause a frenzy within the Big Education community. The article doesn't tell exactly what the reforms are but even the hint of such a thing should drive them wild.


Read the full story @ Scott Walker and Academic Tenure


Meanwhile - Catholic theologians vote to support tenure in Wisconsin @ Catholic theologians vote to support tenure in Wisconsin National Catholic Reporter


I've never fully understood the thinking behind tenure. Why should someone receiver a guarantee of employment simply based upon working some place for a stated period of time? Just get through the hurdle and be set for life. Most tenured professors never have to lecture of give classes, using their students to do so instead. They are responsible to no one. Why shouldn't they have to prove their qualifications on a regular basis?
 
Although it's only in Wisconsin right now, the mere thought of this being revoked will cause a frenzy within the Big Education community. The article doesn't tell exactly what the reforms are but even the hint of such a thing should drive them wild.


Read the full story @ Scott Walker and Academic Tenure


Meanwhile - Catholic theologians vote to support tenure in Wisconsin @ Catholic theologians vote to support tenure in Wisconsin National Catholic Reporter


I've never fully understood the thinking behind tenure. Why should someone receiver a guarantee of employment simply based upon working some place for a stated period of time? Just get through the hurdle and be set for life. Most tenured professors never have to lecture of give classes, using their students to do so instead. They are responsible to no one. Why shouldn't they have to prove their qualifications on a regular basis?
Tenure is just like a secret society of professors who conspire to push the youth! Anyone see that one movie with William H Macy? What's the name?
 
At one time local governments including school districts were a source of jobs. If one helped a government win an election they might be awarded a government job. It was a form of "to the victor belongs the spoils" concept. The employees of entire local governments including schools could be replaced by the election of a different party. Teachers were often fired without a change of government simply because some did not like what or how they taught or because of their politics.
Finally laws were passed to prevent the wholesale firings called civil service, and for teachers, tenure. Teachers are fired all the time including those with tenure, but it has to be for a valid reason. I think many would like to remove tenure so they might replace teachers with teachers of their own political leanings.
 
Typical rhetoric in the article "underworkedand overpaid"... That's just what I think of CEO's. Talk about a bloated salary for doing nothing and its really hard to get rid of them. Only thing is rather than making 100 grad for sitting around and doing zero, they make millions for sitting around doing nothing. In the end I really don't care if th3ey get rid of tenure or not. If all classrooms were flag waving rah rah cheerleaders parsing the exceptionalism of America(of which I have never seen in 77 years here) then nobody would say a word.
 
Typical rhetoric in the article "underworkedand overpaid"... That's just what I think of CEO's. Talk about a bloated salary for doing nothing and its really hard to get rid of them. Only thing is rather than making 100 grad for sitting around and doing zero, they make millions for sitting around doing nothing. In the end I really don't care if th3ey get rid of tenure or not. If all classrooms were flag waving rah rah cheerleaders parsing the exceptionalism of America(of which I have never seen in 77 years here) then nobody would say a word.


Private sector CEOs serve at the discretion of the board of directors.
Public service administrators serve at the discretion of the people.

A Private sector CEO making millions costs you nothing
All public sector employees cost you directly.

See the difference yet?
 
Considering the salaries of the public sector employees that serve me....I am more than glad to pay for their services considering they plow my roads, fight my fires, keep me safe(police), and teach my children. I consider it a small price to pay as none of them are overpaid and undercooked. Perhaps where you live it is different but I am thankful that I have people that will work for such a pittance of a salary and provide me with the services I use on a daily basis and benefit from. Should those people not be paid? As for the CEO, they sit back and watch the average working class slob do the heavy lifting while they sit back and enjoy the fruits of others work.
 
The cushy job dilemma:
Why do half of the new teachers quit teaching within five years. They spend money, effort and four or five years of their life to get their license and then quit.
 
As a teacher I want them to get rid of tenure. I see many of my co-workers who shouldn't be in a classroom.
 
As a teacher I want them to get rid of tenure. I see many of my co-workers who shouldn't be in a classroom.
Be careful what you wish for, your co-workers may feel the same. There are schools that have incompetent teachers and the more able teachers want no part of those schools. The better schools usually get the better teacher, it's that simple.
 
I've never fully understood the thinking behind tenure. Why should someone receiver a guarantee of employment simply based upon working some place for a stated period of time? Just get through the hurdle and be set for life. Most tenured professors never have to lecture of give classes, using their students to do so instead. They are responsible to no one. Why shouldn't they have to prove their qualifications on a regular basis?

First of all, most university tenure is not at all about simply based on having worked somewhere for a set period of time. Rather one has to have done sufficient research and the like. That's why they have tenure review committees. And many people get turned down for tenure (although it is true that in most academic fields people turned down for tenure is a minority). Second, most tenured faculty do have to lecture just like everyone else does. For example, at the university where I'm currently a post-doc, everyone in the department I'm in has to teach at least one course a semester and most of them end up teaching two or three courses each semester and this applies just as much to tenured individuals.

Finally, it is worth noting why tenure exists: it is to allow people to engage in serious research that is either long-term (so having definite fruits will take time), promising but not necessarily likely to pan out (so that people can take longshots) or so they can research highly controversial subjects without fear of repercussion (examples are climate change and whether gun control reduces gun violence). I find it fascinating that many conservatives decry tenure at the same time they complain about "liberal academia"- tenure is one of the things that is important for keeping small voices from being pressured or stamped out by the status quo in academic contexts.
 
As a teacher I want them to get rid of tenure. I see many of my co-workers who shouldn't be in a classroom.
Be careful what you wish for, your co-workers may feel the same. There are schools that have incompetent teachers and the more able teachers want no part of those schools. The better schools usually get the better teacher, it's that simple.

And who suffers? The kids!!!!!
 
As a teacher I want them to get rid of tenure. I see many of my co-workers who shouldn't be in a classroom.
Be careful what you wish for, your co-workers may feel the same. There are schools that have incompetent teachers and the more able teachers want no part of those schools. The better schools usually get the better teacher, it's that simple.

I appreciate your concern but:

-I teach at one of the best schools in the district, TONS of people try to teach here every year
-I probably did stretch it a little by saying "many", I should have said "some"
-I actually enjoy working in the more challenging schools (any teacher can have success with honors seniors...but what about the poor schools with kids who're on the edge and could go either way?) It's more demanding, but more rewarding at the same time
-I'm consistently rated as "highly effective" in the district
-I've earned a pay bonus every year over the past 5 due to my performance (they are stingy with this and it is difficult to earn--and rightfully so)
-All 6 of my classes performed above the district averages for both of their exams (12 out of 12 times).

I'm not suggesting that I'm an expert teacher, or trying to brag--BUT I do know that I'm a good teacher. I had a VERY rough first couple of years (that I didn't have tenure mind you), but I'm pretty good at my craft. I don't fear the end of tenure--I would still have my job. In the very unlikely event that's not the case--I know a few schools that if I applied to tomorrow would immediately hire me.

What I was referring to was the teachers who leave before the buses do. Who constantly complain about how much they make, or how "terrible" their children are (when the truth is that they just suck at classroom management). The teachers who give the rest of us a bad name.

This past week during training we were paired up with teachers of different subjects to compare strategies/styles, etc. We mentioned what we had taught this past year. I mentioned how many classes studied Romeo and Juliet...one of the other teachers actually said to me "do they not read Shakespeare anymore? Romeo and Juliet is ok and all-but I think it's important for the kids to learn Shakespeare right?". I didn't know how to respond to that so I just shrugged. Do I expect every teacher to be experts in every subject? No. Do I expect teachers to know common sense when it comes to academics as whole? Yes. That would be like me not knowing what a square root is.
 
Last edited:
Considering the salaries of the public sector employees that serve me....I am more than glad to pay for their services considering they plow my roads, fight my fires, keep me safe(police), and teach my children. I consider it a small price to pay as none of them are overpaid and undercooked. Perhaps where you live it is different but I am thankful that I have people that will work for such a pittance of a salary and provide me with the services I use on a daily basis and benefit from. Should those people not be paid? As for the CEO, they sit back and watch the average working class slob do the heavy lifting while they sit back and enjoy the fruits of others work.
I am surly those firefighters, teachers, policemen would gladly accept donations....so what's stopping you?
 

Forum List

Back
Top