How Does Teacher Tenure and Seniority Help Students?

[bodecea]

Keeps administrators from using downsizing to get rid of good teachers for office politics reasons.

Let's be honest. There are teachers who need to be fired because they are incompetent. But administrators need to make those cases. Not, "Well, I'll just wait for budget cuts to get rid of him."

For your argument to be valid, you'd have to demonstrate that good teachers are fired for office politics at a higher rate than bad teachers. There's no evidence of this. You'd also have to demonstrate that not firing good teachers for office politics outweighs retaining bad teachers because they're ensconced in the union.

In FL, schools get more money for doing well on tests. The incentive is to keep good teachers and get rid of bad ones.

No...the incentive is to teach to the test.

 

[Theowl32]

A California court struck down teacher tenure and seniority provisions. The unions, as expected, are protesting.

Teachers unions are fighting back against a California ruling that gutted two things they hold sacred: tenure laws and seniority provisions. But they face an uphill battle to reshape their image as opponents—and even some allies—say they are standing in the way of needed improvements in education. ...

Teachers union critics say the tenure and seniority laws that were hobbled by the June ruling protect longtime educators who are ineffective while more proficient ones with less experience face layoffs first. ...

The developments have left the nation's two largest teachers unions in a quandary: how to alter the perception that they are obstacles to change while holding on to principles such as tenure that their members demand.

The unions used their recent national conventions to respond and have notched up the rhetoric. The National Education Association, the largest teachers union at about three million members, elected a new president who called certain teacher-performance metrics such as test scores "the mark of the devil."

The American Federation of Teachers, the second-biggest union at about 1.6 million members, backs a new group, Democrats for Public Education, which advocates for the union's causes. "Sadly, what has changed is that rather than helping teachers help kids, some…are suing to take away the voices of teachers," said AFT President Randi Weingarten. ...

In the California case, a state judge in June struck down certain protections for teachers, including tenure after about two years on the job and seniority protections in layoffs. He found in the case, Vergara v. California, that the measures can entrench unqualified teachers, preventing minority and low-income students from receiving the equitable public education required by the state's constitution.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/teachers-unions-under-fire-1409874404?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories

I certainly appreciate the work teachers do, and I have no problems with giving teachers protections against rash terminations, but I'm not sure how teacher tenure and seniority rules help kids.

I'm not sure it helps them either. Unions have one job, to protect their members. Everything else is secondary.

Unions are interested in themselves and have been for so long. People wanted to believe they were for the worker, but they are socialist/Marxist communities. Longtime president of the American Federation of Teachers union Al Shanker once said, “When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of schoolchildren.”

Politicians are paid to represent the interests of the United States, but they are paid by special interest groups, so those special interest groups get represented more than the voters who elect them.

The very same mechanics are at work with any union. If management paid more money into the union, the union certainly would begin to overlook the interests of the workers.

Children don't have a union.

Meanwhile, the left wing morons vote for the politicians that get paid off by these commies in the unions. You think this commie in chief president, "bailed out" the auto industry, or were the UAV union heads paid off?

 

[Seawytch]

MYTH:
Tenure is a lifetime job guarantee.

REALITY:
Tenure is simply a right to due process; it means that a college or university cannot fire a tenured professor without presenting evidence that the professor is incompetent or behaves unprofessionally or that an academic department needs to be closed or the school is in serious financial difficulty. Nationally, about 2 percent of tenured faculty are dismissed in a typical year.

If it is difficult --- purposely difficult --- to fire a tenured professor, it's also very hard to become one. The probationary period averages three years for community colleges and seven years at four-year colleges. This is a period of employment insecurity almost unique among U.S. professions. People denied tenure at the end of this time lose their jobs; tenure is an "up-or-out" process.

During the probationary period, almost all colleges can choose not to renew faculty contracts and terminate faculty without any reason or cause. Throughout this time, senior professors and administrators evaluate the work of new faculty-teaching, research and service before deciding whether or not to recommend tenure. The most recent survey of American faculty shows that, in a typical year, about one in five probationary faculty members was denied tenure and lost his or her job.

Faculty members remain accountable after achieving tenure. Tenured faculty at most colleges and universities are evaluated periodically-among other things, for promotion, salary increases and, in some cases, merit increases. Grant applications and articles for publication are routinely reviewed on their merit by peers in the field. If basic academic tenets and due process rights are observed, this kind of accountability is wholly appropriate. A finding of incompetence or unprofessional conduct can still result in firing.

The Truth About Tenure in Higher Education

 

[GHook93]

A California court struck down teacher tenure and seniority provisions. The unions, as expected, are protesting.

Teachers unions are fighting back against a California ruling that gutted two things they hold sacred: tenure laws and seniority provisions. But they face an uphill battle to reshape their image as opponents—and even some allies—say they are standing in the way of needed improvements in education. ...

Teachers union critics say the tenure and seniority laws that were hobbled by the June ruling protect longtime educators who are ineffective while more proficient ones with less experience face layoffs first. ...

The developments have left the nation's two largest teachers unions in a quandary: how to alter the perception that they are obstacles to change while holding on to principles such as tenure that their members demand.

The unions used their recent national conventions to respond and have notched up the rhetoric. The National Education Association, the largest teachers union at about three million members, elected a new president who called certain teacher-performance metrics such as test scores "the mark of the devil."

The American Federation of Teachers, the second-biggest union at about 1.6 million members, backs a new group, Democrats for Public Education, which advocates for the union's causes. "Sadly, what has changed is that rather than helping teachers help kids, some…are suing to take away the voices of teachers," said AFT President Randi Weingarten. ...

In the California case, a state judge in June struck down certain protections for teachers, including tenure after about two years on the job and seniority protections in layoffs. He found in the case, Vergara v. California, that the measures can entrench unqualified teachers, preventing minority and low-income students from receiving the equitable public education required by the state's constitution.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/teachers-unions-under-fire-1409874404?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories

I certainly appreciate the work teachers do, and I have no problems with giving teachers protections against rash terminations, but I'm not sure how teacher tenure and seniority rules help kids.

It doesn't help at all! is very detrimental to students, schools and the public education system. It's nearly as detrimental to the schools and students as the unfunded highway robbery collective teacher pension plans. Right now $0.70 of every $1.00 earmarked for education in Cook County, IL (which includes Chicago) goes to retired teacher pension payments.

Revenue isn't the issue, since we pay the 3rd highest property taxes in the country!

Pensions vs. schools - Illinois Policy
Need proof? Consider the fact that more than 70 cents of every new education dollar goes to teacher retirement costs. At the rate pension costs are expected to increase, by 2029 the state will spend more on retirement costs than on aid to schools.

 

[Unkotare]

A California court struck down teacher tenure and seniority provisions. The unions, as expected, are protesting.

Teachers unions are fighting back against a California ruling that gutted two things they hold sacred: tenure laws and seniority provisions. But they face an uphill battle to reshape their image as opponents—and even some allies—say they are standing in the way of needed improvements in education. ...

Teachers union critics say the tenure and seniority laws that were hobbled by the June ruling protect longtime educators who are ineffective while more proficient ones with less experience face layoffs first. ...

The developments have left the nation's two largest teachers unions in a quandary: how to alter the perception that they are obstacles to change while holding on to principles such as tenure that their members demand.

The unions used their recent national conventions to respond and have notched up the rhetoric. The National Education Association, the largest teachers union at about three million members, elected a new president who called certain teacher-performance metrics such as test scores "the mark of the devil."

The American Federation of Teachers, the second-biggest union at about 1.6 million members, backs a new group, Democrats for Public Education, which advocates for the union's causes. "Sadly, what has changed is that rather than helping teachers help kids, some…are suing to take away the voices of teachers," said AFT President Randi Weingarten. ...

In the California case, a state judge in June struck down certain protections for teachers, including tenure after about two years on the job and seniority protections in layoffs. He found in the case, Vergara v. California, that the measures can entrench unqualified teachers, preventing minority and low-income students from receiving the equitable public education required by the state's constitution.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/teachers-unions-under-fire-1409874404?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories

I certainly appreciate the work teachers do, and I have no problems with giving teachers protections against rash terminations, but I'm not sure how teacher tenure and seniority rules help kids.

I believe the idea is to retain the best and most experienced teachers, but it obviously doesn't always work out that way.

 

[Toro]

Keeps administrators from using downsizing to get rid of good teachers for office politics reasons.

Let's be honest. There are teachers who need to be fired because they are incompetent. But administrators need to make those cases. Not, "Well, I'll just wait for budget cuts to get rid of him."

For your argument to be valid, you'd have to demonstrate that good teachers are fired for office politics at a higher rate than bad teachers. There's no evidence of this.

Yeah, because you have union protections that keep that from happening. It's like saying, "prove that lock on your door keeps people from stealing your widescreen." Well. I locked my door, no one stole my widescreen. Duh!

[
In FL, schools get more money for doing well on tests. The incentive is to keep good teachers and get rid of bad ones.

No, it isn't.

Testing is probably the worst thing that happened to teaching.

True story. I was talking to my then 14 year old niece about Columbus and why he made his voyage. And, no, she was never taught any of the details because "it wasn't on the test."

Testing just mean the teachers teach to the test.

But even if you accept the tests are measuring anything other than the ability of testing companies to scam school districts out of money, then it would strike me the schools that do poorly are in need of more money, not the schools that do well.

I'm not arguing about the efficacy of testing. I'm arguing that there is an incentive to keep good teachers because there is a financial incentive - cold, hard cash - to do so. Yours is a nebulous argument of "office politics." Administrators want more money. The incentives are to keep good teachers, not get rid of them for nebulous reasons.

 

[Toro]

MYTH:
Tenure is a lifetime job guarantee.

REALITY:
Tenure is simply a right to due process; it means that a college or university cannot fire a tenured professor without presenting evidence that the professor is incompetent or behaves unprofessionally or that an academic department needs to be closed or the school is in serious financial difficulty. Nationally, about 2 percent of tenured faculty are dismissed in a typical year.

If it is difficult --- purposely difficult --- to fire a tenured professor, it's also very hard to become one. The probationary period averages three years for community colleges and seven years at four-year colleges. This is a period of employment insecurity almost unique among U.S. professions. People denied tenure at the end of this time lose their jobs; tenure is an "up-or-out" process.

During the probationary period, almost all colleges can choose not to renew faculty contracts and terminate faculty without any reason or cause. Throughout this time, senior professors and administrators evaluate the work of new faculty-teaching, research and service before deciding whether or not to recommend tenure. The most recent survey of American faculty shows that, in a typical year, about one in five probationary faculty members was denied tenure and lost his or her job.

Faculty members remain accountable after achieving tenure. Tenured faculty at most colleges and universities are evaluated periodically-among other things, for promotion, salary increases and, in some cases, merit increases. Grant applications and articles for publication are routinely reviewed on their merit by peers in the field. If basic academic tenets and due process rights are observed, this kind of accountability is wholly appropriate. A finding of incompetence or unprofessional conduct can still result in firing.

The Truth About Tenure in Higher Education

In the New York public school system, it is very difficult to fire someone. Often, bad teachers are paid to do nothing because it's much more onerous to fire a teacher than to just pay them.

 

[GHook93]

MYTH:
Tenure is a lifetime job guarantee.

REALITY:
Tenure is simply a right to due process; it means that a college or university cannot fire a tenured professor without presenting evidence that the professor is incompetent or behaves unprofessionally or that an academic department needs to be closed or the school is in serious financial difficulty. Nationally, about 2 percent of tenured faculty are dismissed in a typical year.

If it is difficult --- purposely difficult --- to fire a tenured professor, it's also very hard to become one. The probationary period averages three years for community colleges and seven years at four-year colleges. This is a period of employment insecurity almost unique among U.S. professions. People denied tenure at the end of this time lose their jobs; tenure is an "up-or-out" process.

During the probationary period, almost all colleges can choose not to renew faculty contracts and terminate faculty without any reason or cause. Throughout this time, senior professors and administrators evaluate the work of new faculty-teaching, research and service before deciding whether or not to recommend tenure. The most recent survey of American faculty shows that, in a typical year, about one in five probationary faculty members was denied tenure and lost his or her job.

Faculty members remain accountable after achieving tenure. Tenured faculty at most colleges and universities are evaluated periodically-among other things, for promotion, salary increases and, in some cases, merit increases. Grant applications and articles for publication are routinely reviewed on their merit by peers in the field. If basic academic tenets and due process rights are observed, this kind of accountability is wholly appropriate. A finding of incompetence or unprofessional conduct can still result in firing.

The Truth About Tenure in Higher Education

Oh please. Tenure is about stupidly creating a level of bureaucracy that ties the schools hands in getting rid of teachers. I don't get due process if my company wants to get rid of my services (which I did get laid off in Feb, but found a better job in March) and neither should a school.

We need the best and brightest teachers in our schools. We need specialist, tutors, smaller class sizes etc and we will only get that when highway robbery teacher pensions go away (like they did in the private sector) and are converted to individual pensions like the 401K or IRA. Tenure must go away also.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Not 100% sure how tenure works in the face of an incompetant teacher. Presumedly, if you earned tenure at all you're pretty good. Whether you remain that good thereafter is a worthy question though. And if you start skating by you should be fired regardless. Inclined to think it's another non-problem in search of a solution like voter fraud.

First of all, earning tenure means nothing more than you didn't get fired. So there's no way of knowing if the teacher is good.

Second, once a teacher is protected by tenure, standards and expectations are effectively dropped and the teacher can pretty much do whatever they want. Zero accountability is not a good idea for anyone, ever.

Tenure isn't about quality, it's about protection.

Who told you that?

 

[boilermaker55]

Agreed, if you cannot do your job then you need to be taken out of it. But it is the administrations job to be on top of who is doing a good job and document all things seen and talked about. It is the Unions job to protect and defend their rank and file. If there is enough evidence to fire the individual, as in a court of law, they will be fired. But not on a whim.
What good are CEO's to the public they serve if they have a commodity that is to be used by the public?
We can talk about what ifs!!!! All day!

A California court struck down teacher tenure and seniority provisions. The unions, as expected, are protesting.

Teachers unions are fighting back against a California ruling that gutted two things they hold sacred: tenure laws and seniority provisions. But they face an uphill battle to reshape their image as opponents—and even some allies—say they are standing in the way of needed improvements in education. ...

Teachers union critics say the tenure and seniority laws that were hobbled by the June ruling protect longtime educators who are ineffective while more proficient ones with less experience face layoffs first. ...

The developments have left the nation's two largest teachers unions in a quandary: how to alter the perception that they are obstacles to change while holding on to principles such as tenure that their members demand.

The unions used their recent national conventions to respond and have notched up the rhetoric. The National Education Association, the largest teachers union at about three million members, elected a new president who called certain teacher-performance metrics such as test scores "the mark of the devil."

The American Federation of Teachers, the second-biggest union at about 1.6 million members, backs a new group, Democrats for Public Education, which advocates for the union's causes. "Sadly, what has changed is that rather than helping teachers help kids, some…are suing to take away the voices of teachers," said AFT President Randi Weingarten. ...

In the California case, a state judge in June struck down certain protections for teachers, including tenure after about two years on the job and seniority protections in layoffs. He found in the case, Vergara v. California, that the measures can entrench unqualified teachers, preventing minority and low-income students from receiving the equitable public education required by the state's constitution.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/teachers-unions-under-fire-1409874404?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories

I certainly appreciate the work teachers do, and I have no problems with giving teachers protections against rash terminations, but I'm not sure how teacher tenure and seniority rules help kids.

 

[candycorn]

A California court struck down teacher tenure and seniority provisions. The unions, as expected, are protesting.

Teachers unions are fighting back against a California ruling that gutted two things they hold sacred: tenure laws and seniority provisions. But they face an uphill battle to reshape their image as opponents—and even some allies—say they are standing in the way of needed improvements in education. ...

Teachers union critics say the tenure and seniority laws that were hobbled by the June ruling protect longtime educators who are ineffective while more proficient ones with less experience face layoffs first. ...

The developments have left the nation's two largest teachers unions in a quandary: how to alter the perception that they are obstacles to change while holding on to principles such as tenure that their members demand.

The unions used their recent national conventions to respond and have notched up the rhetoric. The National Education Association, the largest teachers union at about three million members, elected a new president who called certain teacher-performance metrics such as test scores "the mark of the devil."

The American Federation of Teachers, the second-biggest union at about 1.6 million members, backs a new group, Democrats for Public Education, which advocates for the union's causes. "Sadly, what has changed is that rather than helping teachers help kids, some…are suing to take away the voices of teachers," said AFT President Randi Weingarten. ...

In the California case, a state judge in June struck down certain protections for teachers, including tenure after about two years on the job and seniority protections in layoffs. He found in the case, Vergara v. California, that the measures can entrench unqualified teachers, preventing minority and low-income students from receiving the equitable public education required by the state's constitution.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/teachers-unions-under-fire-1409874404?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories

I certainly appreciate the work teachers do, and I have no problems with giving teachers protections against rash terminations, but I'm not sure how teacher tenure and seniority rules help kids.

I'm not sure it helps them either. Unions have one job, to protect their members. Everything else is secondary.

Unions are interested in themselves and have been for so long. People wanted to believe they were for the worker, but they are socialist/Marxist communities. Longtime president of the American Federation of Teachers union Al Shanker once said, “When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of schoolchildren.”

Politicians are paid to represent the interests of the United States, but they are paid by special interest groups, so those special interest groups get represented more than the voters who elect them.

The very same mechanics are at work with any union. If management paid more money into the union, the union certainly would begin to overlook the interests of the workers.

Children don't have a union.

Meanwhile, the left wing morons vote for the politicians that get paid off by these commies in the unions. You think this commie in chief president, "bailed out" the auto industry, or were the UAV union heads paid off?

You're full of shit as always.

Between 1970 and 2000--those 30 years--we had 18 years of GOP domination in the White House and 12 years of Democrat domination. In the 16 years that would have passed between 2000 and 2016, we've had evenly split GOP and DNC administrations. Congress changes hands about every 10 years or so. We have 30 State houses that are in GOP hands and, if logic follows, those voters that install GOP administrations in Nashville, Austin, Topeka and Madison are the same ones voting in local school board elections...

And our education system has been the same ever since 1970 or thereabout when we were no longer "number one", whatever the hell that means.

I think it's time to simply accept that we as a society are pretty much going to have this same level of measured intellect that has always been there. There will be the exceptionally smart, the exceptionally dense and the large group inbetween. Spending more has done zilch. Building more schools has done zilch. Head Start, Back to Basics, Race to the Top, Just Say No, whoever and whatever has done nada.

What is the solution?

This may be a clue as to what one possible solution would be:

The number of working women has almost doubled in the last 40-50 years.

So when Jane gets home, instead of a parent being there to instruct her to finish the homework before playing or making phone calls, nobody is home since women and men are both working.

At some point, if we want to really strive toward the betterment our children's future, the parents have got to get more involved than they are now.

In no way am I saying that women should quit and go back home. But if you want your kid to buck the odds, it's probably a choice that parents have to make if available.

Politics have zero to do with this situation. Throwing more money at the problem has done nothing and paying teachers what Wal Mart associates make will obviously do nothing.

I favor a more draconian school setting as to where there is no activities (sports and academics) that force students to stay after/come before regular school hours. A compulsory battery of classes that stresses the basics along with classes in real world money management and household budgeting. A return to offering vocational education for those who are decidedly not on a vector for college. There is zero shame in turning a wrench for a living. Then, once you graduate, I think the Federal Government should offer you 60 hours of college credit (or whatever the monetary equivalent is) that you will pay back over your earning lifetime. Few know what they want to do at 18 and many if not most end up getting jobs outside of their majors.

 

[Sallow]

A California court struck down teacher tenure and seniority provisions. The unions, as expected, are protesting.

Teachers unions are fighting back against a California ruling that gutted two things they hold sacred: tenure laws and seniority provisions. But they face an uphill battle to reshape their image as opponents—and even some allies—say they are standing in the way of needed improvements in education. ...

Teachers union critics say the tenure and seniority laws that were hobbled by the June ruling protect longtime educators who are ineffective while more proficient ones with less experience face layoffs first. ...

The developments have left the nation's two largest teachers unions in a quandary: how to alter the perception that they are obstacles to change while holding on to principles such as tenure that their members demand.

The unions used their recent national conventions to respond and have notched up the rhetoric. The National Education Association, the largest teachers union at about three million members, elected a new president who called certain teacher-performance metrics such as test scores "the mark of the devil."

The American Federation of Teachers, the second-biggest union at about 1.6 million members, backs a new group, Democrats for Public Education, which advocates for the union's causes. "Sadly, what has changed is that rather than helping teachers help kids, some…are suing to take away the voices of teachers," said AFT President Randi Weingarten. ...

In the California case, a state judge in June struck down certain protections for teachers, including tenure after about two years on the job and seniority protections in layoffs. He found in the case, Vergara v. California, that the measures can entrench unqualified teachers, preventing minority and low-income students from receiving the equitable public education required by the state's constitution.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/teachers-unions-under-fire-1409874404?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories

I certainly appreciate the work teachers do, and I have no problems with giving teachers protections against rash terminations, but I'm not sure how teacher tenure and seniority rules help kids.

My Uncle, an extremely smart and accomplished man (Uncle by marriage to my Aunt) was once a high school teacher. He was fed up with the long hours and low pay so he started a limo business that he was extremely successful at.

That's unfortunate for the kids. He had a lot to offer. The profession did not meet his expectations in compensation.

So I really don't get you here. Teaching is attractive to some folks because they like the gig and it offers job security.

Take away the job security and what's the offer? A low paying job you like to do?

**** that.

 

[Sallow]

A California court struck down teacher tenure and seniority provisions. The unions, as expected, are protesting.

Teachers unions are fighting back against a California ruling that gutted two things they hold sacred: tenure laws and seniority provisions. But they face an uphill battle to reshape their image as opponents—and even some allies—say they are standing in the way of needed improvements in education. ...

Teachers union critics say the tenure and seniority laws that were hobbled by the June ruling protect longtime educators who are ineffective while more proficient ones with less experience face layoffs first. ...

The developments have left the nation's two largest teachers unions in a quandary: how to alter the perception that they are obstacles to change while holding on to principles such as tenure that their members demand.

The unions used their recent national conventions to respond and have notched up the rhetoric. The National Education Association, the largest teachers union at about three million members, elected a new president who called certain teacher-performance metrics such as test scores "the mark of the devil."

The American Federation of Teachers, the second-biggest union at about 1.6 million members, backs a new group, Democrats for Public Education, which advocates for the union's causes. "Sadly, what has changed is that rather than helping teachers help kids, some…are suing to take away the voices of teachers," said AFT President Randi Weingarten. ...

In the California case, a state judge in June struck down certain protections for teachers, including tenure after about two years on the job and seniority protections in layoffs. He found in the case, Vergara v. California, that the measures can entrench unqualified teachers, preventing minority and low-income students from receiving the equitable public education required by the state's constitution.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/teachers-unions-under-fire-1409874404?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories

I certainly appreciate the work teachers do, and I have no problems with giving teachers protections against rash terminations, but I'm not sure how teacher tenure and seniority rules help kids.

I'm not sure it helps them either. Unions have one job, to protect their members. Everything else is secondary.

Unions are interested in themselves and have been for so long. People wanted to believe they were for the worker, but they are socialist/Marxist communities. Longtime president of the American Federation of Teachers union Al Shanker once said, “When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of schoolchildren.”

Politicians are paid to represent the interests of the United States, but they are paid by special interest groups, so those special interest groups get represented more than the voters who elect them.

The very same mechanics are at work with any union. If management paid more money into the union, the union certainly would begin to overlook the interests of the workers.

Children don't have a union.

Meanwhile, the left wing morons vote for the politicians that get paid off by these commies in the unions. You think this commie in chief president, "bailed out" the auto industry, or were the UAV union heads paid off?

Unions aren't Marxist.

Quite the contrary, communists get rid of Unions. And in communist nations, Unions led the way to overthrow the government, most notably in Poland.

Fascists don't like Unions, either.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

A California court struck down teacher tenure and seniority provisions. The unions, as expected, are protesting.

Teachers unions are fighting back against a California ruling that gutted two things they hold sacred: tenure laws and seniority provisions. But they face an uphill battle to reshape their image as opponents—and even some allies—say they are standing in the way of needed improvements in education. ...

Teachers union critics say the tenure and seniority laws that were hobbled by the June ruling protect longtime educators who are ineffective while more proficient ones with less experience face layoffs first. ...

The developments have left the nation's two largest teachers unions in a quandary: how to alter the perception that they are obstacles to change while holding on to principles such as tenure that their members demand.

The unions used their recent national conventions to respond and have notched up the rhetoric. The National Education Association, the largest teachers union at about three million members, elected a new president who called certain teacher-performance metrics such as test scores "the mark of the devil."

The American Federation of Teachers, the second-biggest union at about 1.6 million members, backs a new group, Democrats for Public Education, which advocates for the union's causes. "Sadly, what has changed is that rather than helping teachers help kids, some…are suing to take away the voices of teachers," said AFT President Randi Weingarten. ...

In the California case, a state judge in June struck down certain protections for teachers, including tenure after about two years on the job and seniority protections in layoffs. He found in the case, Vergara v. California, that the measures can entrench unqualified teachers, preventing minority and low-income students from receiving the equitable public education required by the state's constitution.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/teachers-unions-under-fire-1409874404?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories

I certainly appreciate the work teachers do, and I have no problems with giving teachers protections against rash terminations, but I'm not sure how teacher tenure and seniority rules help kids.

Tenure does not help students in any way,shape, or form.

Teacher seniority COULD help students as theoretically more senior teachers should be better teachers.

 

[Sallow]

What good are CEO's to the public they serve if they have a commodity that is to be used by the public?
We can talk about what ifs!!!! All day!

CEO's aren't any good to the public. The Bush cataclysm should have taught you that.

The Wonder Boys of wallstreet and the auto industry cost this country, trillions.

 

[candycorn]

A California court struck down teacher tenure and seniority provisions. The unions, as expected, are protesting.

Teachers unions are fighting back against a California ruling that gutted two things they hold sacred: tenure laws and seniority provisions. But they face an uphill battle to reshape their image as opponents—and even some allies—say they are standing in the way of needed improvements in education. ...

Teachers union critics say the tenure and seniority laws that were hobbled by the June ruling protect longtime educators who are ineffective while more proficient ones with less experience face layoffs first. ...

The developments have left the nation's two largest teachers unions in a quandary: how to alter the perception that they are obstacles to change while holding on to principles such as tenure that their members demand.

The unions used their recent national conventions to respond and have notched up the rhetoric. The National Education Association, the largest teachers union at about three million members, elected a new president who called certain teacher-performance metrics such as test scores "the mark of the devil."

The American Federation of Teachers, the second-biggest union at about 1.6 million members, backs a new group, Democrats for Public Education, which advocates for the union's causes. "Sadly, what has changed is that rather than helping teachers help kids, some…are suing to take away the voices of teachers," said AFT President Randi Weingarten. ...

In the California case, a state judge in June struck down certain protections for teachers, including tenure after about two years on the job and seniority protections in layoffs. He found in the case, Vergara v. California, that the measures can entrench unqualified teachers, preventing minority and low-income students from receiving the equitable public education required by the state's constitution.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/teachers-unions-under-fire-1409874404?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories

I certainly appreciate the work teachers do, and I have no problems with giving teachers protections against rash terminations, but I'm not sure how teacher tenure and seniority rules help kids.

I'm not sure it helps them either. Unions have one job, to protect their members. Everything else is secondary.

Unions are interested in themselves and have been for so long. People wanted to believe they were for the worker, but they are socialist/Marxist communities. Longtime president of the American Federation of Teachers union Al Shanker once said, “When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of schoolchildren.”

Politicians are paid to represent the interests of the United States, but they are paid by special interest groups, so those special interest groups get represented more than the voters who elect them.

The very same mechanics are at work with any union. If management paid more money into the union, the union certainly would begin to overlook the interests of the workers.

Children don't have a union.

Meanwhile, the left wing morons vote for the politicians that get paid off by these commies in the unions. You think this commie in chief president, "bailed out" the auto industry, or were the UAV union heads paid off?

Unions aren't Marxist.

Quite the contrary, communists get rid of Unions. And in communist nations, Unions led the way to overthrow the government, most notably in Poland.

Fascists don't like Unions, either.

I'm apathetic toward unions. As with any group, they have their good points and their bad points; good members and bad members; goals that I can agree with and goals that I find to be self-serving and not in the best interest of the workers or the companies.

I will say this; Unions love to blame businesses for their decline. B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.

Unions have themselves to blame, chiefly.

Back when I graduated high school, I must have received dozens of brochures from the military advertising their branch as not only a job, but a career. Colleges came calling as well. Churches and missions sent letters too. It was, frankly, very flattering. You know what I received from unions? Not one scrap of any sort of information at all. Their recruitment efforts are almost non-existent unless there are TV cameras on and they are trying to convince fast food workers that they should make $15 an hour... Ridiculous.

 

[Decus]

It helps students because it makes the profession of teaching more attractive to people considering a career, and therefore attracts better quality people to the profession.

You get what you pay for.

^ here is the OP's answer. I honestly don't know why anyone would want to be a teacher in today's climate.

Given how much we invest in education I have to ask just what in the hell are we paying for?

Friggin tragic.
.

 

[boedicca]

I certainly appreciate the work teachers do, and I have no problems with giving teachers protections against rash terminations, but I'm not sure how teacher tenure and seniority rules help kids.

They don't help the kids; they help the teachers' unions.

It's not a coincidence that as the unions have gained power and money, that the quality of education has declined.

 

[Sallow]

I'm apathetic toward unions. As with any group, they have their good points and their bad points; good members and bad members; goals that I can agree with and goals that I find to be self-serving and not in the best interest of the workers or the companies.

I will say this; Unions love to blame businesses for their decline. B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.

Unions have themselves to blame, chiefly.

Back when I graduated high school, I must have received dozens of brochures from the military advertising their branch as not only a job, but a career. Colleges came calling as well. Churches and missions sent letters too. It was, frankly, very flattering. You know what I received from unions? Not one scrap of any sort of information at all. Their recruitment efforts are almost non-existent unless there are TV cameras on and they are trying to convince fast food workers that they should make $15 an hour... Ridiculous.

I don't care what you are about Unions, that assessment is incorrect.

Big corporate interest have bought politicians that have worked to create laws reversing the gains of labor. Notably was Ronald Reagan who broke the Air Traffic controller Union. Recently Governor Walker effectively made collective bargaining, illegal. He did not even run on that.

When I worked at the NYSE, the very last Union guy working there explained to me that they had "captured" everyone there by giving them all the benefits they wanted, without the dues. When he retired? Everything changed. Benefits were cut or done away with..and then they laid everyone off.

And generally? When I have been in the boardroom with CEOs? All they complain about is worker compensation.

 

[candycorn]

It helps students because it makes the profession of teaching more attractive to people considering a career, and therefore attracts better quality people to the profession.

You get what you pay for.

^ here is the OP's answer. I honestly don't know why anyone would want to be a teacher in today's climate.

Given how much we invest in education I have to ask just what in the hell are we paying for?

Friggin tragic.
.

Its helpful to remember that on the whole, America is in excellent shape and not all important learning comes in a classroom. But I'm with you. We're spending more and there is not enough ROI to justify spending more. We have some really fine gyms and football stadiums though.