Judge strikes down California teacher tenure

[Spartanmack]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/u...tional.html?emc=edit_na_20140610&nlid=1478754

Big win for students and taxpayers. Tenure below the university level is the most ridiculous policy in public education in theory and practice. In NY tenure was automatic based on 2 years of service regardless of performance reviews until Bloomberg recently pushed through reforms - although he wasn't able to get rid of it altogether. Apparently, there's still hope. It's completely arbitrary and does way more harm than good. This is my favorite part...

?Substantial evidence presented makes it clear to this court that the challenged statutes disproportionately affect poor and/or minority students,? Judge Rolf M. Treu wrote in the ruling. ?The evidence is compelling. Indeed, it shocks the conscience.?

 

[Monster]

I agree. Sounds weird, but i agree.

 

[Michchamp]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/u...tional.html?emc=edit_na_20140610&nlid=1478754

Big win for students and taxpayers. Tenure below the university level is the most ridiculous policy in public education in theory and practice. In NY tenure was automatic based on 2 years of service regardless of performance reviews until Bloomberg recently pushed through reforms - although he wasn't able to get rid of it altogether. Apparently, there's still hope. It's completely arbitrary and does way more harm than good.

so you say.

The alternative that's being pushed behind the scenes is of course charter school education & privatization (see next para). Teacher unions/tenure are just a roadblock to that. And the basis for that push has been completely destroyed... charter schools have performed... no better than regular public schools at best here in Chicago (and notably even charter school advocates like Rahm Emanuel and Bruce Rauner here send their kids to regular unionized schools in Chicago - link and link), and have been more and more embroiled in financial fraud, embezzlement, and misuse of funds (link, link, and link, or just google it for reports around the nation). Sure you can find overspending and misuse of taxpayer dollars in traditional school districts, but... you don't see it to the extent at charters, where funds simply disappear and the operators aren't accountable to voters/taxpayers through local school boards.

the basis for the suit was financed by this guy:

Students Matter, the non-profit that funded the multi-million dollar suit, is founded and primarily funded by David Welch. Welch made his fortune in fiber optics, first serving as CTO of SDL when the company went through a $41 billion merger with JDS Uniphase in 2000 and later founding Infinera.​

...and tied to all the charlatans in the privatise/charter school movement like Michelle Rhee, & Obama's own education secretary (barf) Arne Duncan. So I don't reflexively view this as a good thing.

This is my favorite part...

“Substantial evidence presented makes it clear to this court that the challenged statutes disproportionately affect poor and/or minority students,” Judge Rolf M. Treu wrote in the ruling. “The evidence is compelling. Indeed, it shocks the conscience.”

well, you're not a lawyer, so your take on the Opinion here means shit to me. I'll wait to read actual scholarly review of the decision & opinion before I consider whether the reasoning here holds water. actual scholarship tends to take more time to develop than internet posting.

 

[Michchamp]

the links above are for non-dipshit posters to read. I know spartanmack won't read them, and will instead pick on semantics or call me names.

I stand on post #3. No further comment.

 

[Spartanmack]

so you say.

Charter schools have performed... no better than regular public schools at best here in Chicago, and have been more and more embroiled in financial fraud, embezzlement, and misuse of funds.

So you say, but 3 of the top 5 public high schools in the country are charter schools. But the bit about financial fraud, embezzlement and misuse of funds is a great point for shutting down charter schools because that has and would never happen in public schools, or with unions. Actually, the big difference is when it happens at a charter school, people can be held accountable, fired and schools can be shut down.

the basis for the suit was financed by this guy:

Students Matter, the non-profit that funded the multi-million dollar suit, is founded and primarily funded by David Welch. Welch made his fortune in fiber optics, first serving as CTO of SDL when the company went through a $41 billion merger with JDS Uniphase in 2000 and later founding Infinera.​

...and tied to all the charlatans in the privatise/charter school movement like Michelle Rhee, & Obama's own education secretary (barf) Arne Duncan. So I don't reflexively view this as a good thing.

Yes, nothing worse than a billionaire using his money to help kids, especially if it hurts your beloved unions. Especially a self made billionaire who as the youngest of 7 attended public school, state university, earned a PdD in electrical engineering, made a fortune in fiber optics, has his name on 125 patents and has dedicated his philanthropic efforts to education reform. What would that guy know about education? It's so funny that you think you can paste a link about someone who opposes your view and disqualify him based on the fact that he's rich.

well, you're not a lawyer, so your take on the Opinion here means shit to me. I'll wait to read actual scholarly review of the decision & opinion before I consider whether the reasoning here holds water. actual scholarship tends to take more time to develop than internet posting.

Well, you are a lawyer, a libtard and a douchebag so your take on whichever pro-union, leftist "scholarly" review you cherry pick to tell you what your opinion should be means shit to me. But at least you bought yourself some time.

I like the way you edited your prior post. But you're wrong, what's being pushed front and center is education reform. Period. It just happens to be reform you don't support because it doesn't involve higher taxes and more give-aways to unions. And I LOVE that your first two links about fraud and embezzlement involve stories about schools that don't disclose their budgets. That's a pretty big leap from nondisclosure (esp when the first claims no legal obligation to comply with the request for their records) to fraud, embezzlement and misappropriation. I always get confused, if you're found to be full of shit (again) is that slander or libel? You're a lawyer, do you know?

By the way I never said a word about charter schools, just that it's good that California is getting rid of tenure. Countdown to mc accusing me of changing the subject, moving the goalpost or "doing that thing I do" in 5, 4, 3...

 

[Michchamp]

the decision is being appealed, so the order is stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

this article is a little better; the writer actually concedes that the tenure system in CA doesn't make sense... tenure is awarded too early, and over a year (after 2 years in CA) before the national avg. (3.1 years). typically, it takes 2 years for teachers to get up to speed & therefore fairly evaluated. and that being said, the reasonable outcome would be to amend CA's rules to make tenure earned later in the career, not to strike it completely, and the judge's decision is far overreaching for that reason.

the basis for tenure:

Tenure has existed in K-12 public education since 1909, when ?good-government? reformers borrowed the concept from Germany. The idea spread quickly from New Jersey to New York to Chicago and then across the country. During the Progressive Era, both teachers unions and school-accountability hawks embraced the policy, which prevented teaching jobs from being given out as favors by political bosses. If it was legally difficult to fire a good teacher, she couldn?t be replaced by the alderman?s unqualified sister-in-law.​

but of course, if you're looking to gut unions so you can put charters in place, and your stupid, unsupported-by-evidence-but-well-rewarded by government-handouts-to Michelle-Rhee mandatory testing standards that allow you to fire teachers and close schools that underperform (and tend to be located in poor parts of town, heavily segregated...) this decision that ends tenure, period, is fantastic.

 

[Spartanmack]

the decision is being appealed, so the order is stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

this article is a little better; the writer actually concedes that the tenure system in CA doesn't make sense... tenure is awarded too early, and over a year (after 2 years in CA) before the national avg. (3.1 years). typically, it takes 2 years for teachers to get up to speed & therefore fairly evaluated. and that being said, the reasonable outcome would be to amend CA's rules to make tenure earned later in the career, not to strike it completely, and the judge's decision is far overreaching for that reason.

the basis for tenure:

Tenure has existed in K-12 public education since 1909, when “good-government” reformers borrowed the concept from Germany. The idea spread quickly from New Jersey to New York to Chicago and then across the country. During the Progressive Era, both teachers unions and school-accountability hawks embraced the policy, which prevented teaching jobs from being given out as favors by political bosses. If it was legally difficult to fire a good teacher, she couldn’t be replaced by the alderman’s unqualified sister-in-law.​

but of course, if you're looking to gut unions so you can put charters in place, and your stupid, unsupported-by-evidence-but-well-rewarded by government-handouts-to Michelle-Rhee mandatory testing standards that allow you to fire teachers and close schools that underperform (and tend to be located in poor parts of town, heavily segregated...) this decision that ends tenure, period, is fantastic.

The argument against tenure is not that it's given too soon, it's that it provides a mechanism for teachers to stop giving a shit once they get it - that's obvious. And it never mattered that it was given out "too soon" becaues it was a rubber stamp based exclusively on time of service and not merit. And the argument that we solve things like corruption in government with policies like tenure is ridiculous - that's nothing more than window dressing for another union handout. How can making it impossible to fire a bad teacher be a good policy?

As for the "basis" for tenure - well if the Germans are doing it...LOL. And how about you find some of those school "accountability hawks" that back tenure then or now. Do you even think about why the idea spread quickly from New Jersey to California? I'll give you a clue, the answer starts with "U" and ends with "nion". Good luck. if you can figure that one out, how about you dig up some evidence that shows how tenure has led to better outcomes and by better outcomes I don't mean bad teachers keeping their jobs and benefits, I mean show how tenure benefits students. Again, good luck.

 

[Mitchrapp]

The argument against tenure is not that it's given too soon, it's that it provides a mechanism for teachers to stop giving a shit once they get it - that's obvious. And it never mattered that it was given out "too soon" becaues it was a rubber stamp based exclusively on time of service and not merit. And the argument that we solve things like corruption in government with policies like tenure is ridiculous - that's nothing more than window dressing for another union handout. How can making it impossible to fire a bad teacher be a good policy?

As for the "basis" for tenure - well if the Germans are doing it...LOL. And how about you find some of those school "accountability hawks" that back tenure then or now. Do you even think about why the idea spread quickly from New Jersey to California? I'll give you a clue, the answer starts with "U" and ends with "nion". Good luck. if you can figure that one out, how about you dig up some evidence that shows how tenure has led to better outcomes and by better outcomes I don't mean bad teachers keeping their jobs and benefits, I mean show how tenure benefits students. Again, good luck.

The bolded part exactly. Tenure for Middle School and HS teachers is ludicrous.

 

[Michchamp]

do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that teachers just basically stop working once they get tenure?

seems like this is one of those situations where some interested party (here the people that want to gut teachers' unions and privatize education) simply makes up a problem for which the solution is conveniently what they profit from.

The article I posted in post #6 says CA doesn't have a problem getting rid of lazy teachers as much as they have a problem getting good teachers to work in poor districts & improving funding for those districts... ending tenure - a policy which admittedly in CA may need to be revised - isn't going to correct that.

 

[Spartanmack]

do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that teachers just basically stop working once they get tenure?

Just the state of the American public school system - oh, and the evidence in this case I read about recently where a judge in California struck down that state's tenure laws on the basis of ?Substantial evidence presented makes it clear to this court that the challenged statutes disproportionately affect poor and/or minority students,? Judge Rolf M. Treu wrote in the ruling. ?The evidence is compelling. Indeed, it shocks the conscience.?

 

[tinselwolverine]

do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that teachers just basically stop working once they get tenure?

He said it provides "a mechanism for them to stop giving a shit;" not that they "just basically stop working...
"
Obviously, either

a) You're stupid;

b) I forget what b is, or

c) You have a significant problem with reading comprehension.

Now stop putting words into SpartanMack's mouth.

 

[Michchamp]

Just the state of the American public school system - oh, and the evidence in this case I read about recently where a judge in California struck down that state's tenure laws on the basis of ?Substantial evidence presented makes it clear to this court that the challenged statutes disproportionately affect poor and/or minority students,? Judge Rolf M. Treu wrote in the ruling. ?The evidence is compelling. Indeed, it shocks the conscience.?

schools in rich areas - tenure or not - are doing fine.

 

[Mitchrapp]

do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that teachers just basically stop working once they get tenure?

The fact there are lazy people out there..and

If you suck as a teacher you shouldn't keep your job because of tenure.

 

[Mitchrapp]

schools in rich areas - tenure or not - are doing fine.

I'm sure 100% of them are awesome..:cheers:

 

[Spartanmack]

schools in rich areas - tenure or not - are doing fine.

easily the best argument for tenure yet. You kick ass at this. But in case you think this somehow unfairly targets the poor schools, when in fact the ruling states tenure negatively affects the poor disproportionately, public school teachers in those rich schools are losing tenure too.

 

[Michchamp]

He said it provides "a mechanism for them to stop giving a shit;" not that they "just basically stop working...
"
Obviously, either

a) You're stupid;

b) I forget what b is, or

c) You have a significant problem with reading comprehension.

Now stop putting words into SpartanMack's mouth.

you're right. they may still be working hard, but just "not giving a shit." I should've clarified.

 

[Mitchrapp]

you're right. they may still be working hard, but just "not giving a shit." I should've clarified.

May? That's a good word, they may still be working hard and they may not.

 

[Spartanmack]

do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that teachers just basically stop working once they get tenure?

seems like this is one of those situations where some interested party (here the people that want to gut teachers' unions and privatize education) simply makes up a problem for which the solution is conveniently what they profit from.

How can you possibly know this if you haven't yet read that scholarly review? Just kidding, I know this is just mere assertion on your part.

 

[tinselwolverine]

you're right. they may still be working hard, but just "not giving a shit." I should've clarified.

SpartanMack can be very, very particular about the specifics of what he has stated...

 

[Spartanmack]

He said it provides "a mechanism for them to stop giving a shit;" not that they "just basically stop working...
"
Obviously, either

a) You're stupid;

b) I forget what b is, or

c) You have a significant problem with reading comprehension.

Now stop putting words into SpartanMack's mouth.

Thanks pal - knew i could count on you to have my back.