Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Judge strikes down California teacher tenure

I think it's the vast majority. It's not like you just sign up to be a teacher and get a paycheck. Getting trained is a pretty decent weedout process.

...and how do I have to word the question to get an actual link to the evidence mentioned here?

That's fine, but being motivated by noble intent doesn't make you a good teacher and is itself not justification for tenure. Of course people who care are more likely to be good teachers but this isn't about intent, it's about an absurd, arbitrary mechanism for bulletproof job security. The case found that it hurts students and disproportionately hurts economically disadvantaged students. And in NY, you can just get a job teaching - one of my best friends quit her job at a big bank flashed her undergrad degree (not in education) and MBA and started teaching in an NYC public middle school while she took what she described as a "Mickey Mouse" program over a couple months to receive her teaching certificate.

The evidence from the case doesn't appear to be available as of now. According to the NYT piece, the judge's final opinion won't be out until the end of the month - not sure if evidence/data will be out with that, before or after.
 
Last edited:
Here's the actual opinion... the judge does a bit of grandstanding (red flag to me, but whatever) citing Brown v. Board of Education, and Alexander Hamilton.

the evidence cited in the record seems light to me. pg. 8 - by the record, out of 275,000, both sides seem to accept the figure of the defense expert that 1-3% are "grossly ineffective" a number ranging from 2750 to 8750.

not sure how doing away with tenure will change that, unless there are an equal number of expert teachers waiting to be hired to replace them.

the evidence that it can take a long time to fire a tenured teacher is not put in any context... obviously it's easy to fire an at-will employee... would like to see some analogies between the cost to fire teachers and other employees with similar protections.

the whole thing about how this disproportionately affects minorities is a single paragraph on pg. 15. ... other evidence referred to, but not cited. Lightweight.

I'm curious to read their grounds for appeal; typically a well-written opinion on a contentious topic that will likely be appealed is a lot weightier as the judge lays everything out to ensure he's not overturned. I'd be interested in seeing the record at trial and wondering what evidence the School System presented to counter the plaintiff's arguments.
 
I'm being polite here, but I think you need to re-read the last paragraph, first of all. the testing is stupid, not the person pushing it. I would've said "you're stupid" not "your stupid, ...testing."

I think he's doing that thing. Where's Tinsel when I need him? TINSEL?!!!
 
Last edited:
seems like - at best - the plaintiff's laid down a case for making it a little easier to fire teachers and not giving tenure after 2 years. doing away with tenure completely is not justified by the evidence.

we've had tenured public school faculty for a long time... MA was the first state to pass it in 1886. Other states followed. it wasn't always bad. what else changed, besides a billionaire with direct ties to organizations that oppose teacher tenure & teacher's unions decided to recruit a handful of poor kids and file a lawsuit ostensibly on the kids' behalf, but with the result that it furthered the goals of those organizations?
 
Here's the actual opinion... the judge does a bit of grandstanding (red flag to me, but whatever) citing Brown v. Board of Education, and Alexander Hamilton.

the evidence cited in the record seems light to me. pg. 8 - by the record, out of 275,000, both sides seem to accept the figure of the defense expert that 1-3% are "grossly ineffective" a number ranging from 2750 to 8750.

not sure how doing away with tenure will change that, unless there are an equal number of expert teachers waiting to be hired to replace them.

the evidence that it can take a long time to fire a tenured teacher is not put in any context... obviously it's easy to fire an at-will employee... would like to see some analogies between the cost to fire teachers and other employees with similar protections.

the whole thing about how this disproportionately affects minorities is a single paragraph on pg. 15. ... other evidence referred to, but not cited. Lightweight.

I'm curious to read their grounds for appeal; typically a well-written opinion on a contentious topic that will likely be appealed is a lot weightier as the judge lays everything out to ensure he's not overturned. I'd be interested in seeing the record at trial and wondering what evidence the School System presented to counter the plaintiff's arguments.

So we're not actually talking about unmotivated or lazy teachers or teachers that "stop giving a shit once they get it" (tenure). Why the bottom 1-3% are ineffective isn't mentioned. There's just evidence that they disproportionally impact poor and minority students. I don't think I need to see evidence of that. Seems pretty obvious to me wealthy communities are going to find ways to avoid the bottom 1-3%.
 
seems like - at best - the plaintiff's laid down a case for making it a little easier to fire teachers and not giving tenure after 2 years. doing away with tenure completely is not justified by the evidence.

we've had tenured public school faculty for a long time... MA was the first state to pass it in 1886. Other states followed. it wasn't always bad. what else changed, besides a billionaire with direct ties to organizations that oppose teacher tenure & teacher's unions decided to recruit a handful of poor kids and file a lawsuit ostensibly on the kids' behalf, but with the result that it furthered the goals of those organizations?

What are his "direct ties" to organizations that oppose unions? Do you mean his philanthropic organization with the goal of education reform to benefit America's young students? I have to give you some credit there though, you kind of make it sound like he's somehow benefiting personally from getting rid of tenure and possibly ultimately the teachers union even though you're not saying that - it's almost as if you want to make people think he's like what you think the Koch brothers are like. Of course, I can't rule out the possibility that this was just an accident as I don't think you're all that clever, but in case it wasn't - well done michchamp, well done indeed.
 
I'm being polite here, but I think you need to re-read the last paragraph, first of all. the testing is stupid, not the person pushing it. I would've said "you're stupid" not "your stupid, ...testing."

also, I understand a lot of people in some parts of the country are not familiar with this initiative, but it's farther along in Chicago, so I've read quite a bit about it. read a couple of the links I posted above before you rush to attack me personally.

Also, the idea that you can subject schools to universal testing standards is wrong; obviously wealthier districts will do better... so the result is you have schools in poor areas losing funding and teachers. The results can be seen in Chicago, and they have a disproportionate effect on black areas, which now have fewer schools serving the same population, and kids have to walk further to get there. So while that always sounds great on paper, it leads to pretty awful consequences in practice.

As you can see, it's not about bashing Republicans either; one of the biggest pushers of this nonsense is Obama's Sec. of Education. And Duncan and Rahm Emanuel here are as anti-union as any Republican... the Unions make it hard to gift wrap education money to developers and contractors since those pesky teachers' unions can afford lawyers and courtroom fights that individual teachers could not.

Yep read it wrong. Who knew you would use proper grammar? :*)

Just so you know, I wasn't trying to attack you. I was using it is an example of some of your other drawn out descriptions of things. ". . . gun-totin', poster-child-for-abortion, country hick bastard of some moronic Republican asshole . . . " You could just say ". . . moronic Republican asshole . . .", and most would have gotten the gist. I thought you were just trying to be sarcastically funny, so I figured I would throw it back at you.

Of course I did read it wrong, so that part is "Never mind . . . "

My exposure to charter schools is a bit different than yours. I've seen several in non-affluent areas here pretty well received by the inhabitants. But hey, any good idea applied by corrupt politicians could end up hurting the people they intended to help. Chicago politicians aren't necessarily known for their integrity - I have two sisters that live there - so I get earfuls all the time.

FYI - one of those sisters is pretty liberal, the other is a devout pro-life conservative. Needless to say the conversations get pretty lively when we are all together.
 
Last edited:
That's some high-level, new world order conspiracy theory there.

I didn't say it was purposeful. But teaching kids to pass state-sanctioned standardized tests is no way you promote learning or inspire young minds. Neither is holding them captive in rooms eight hours a day, five days a week.
 
I didn't say it was purposeful. But teaching kids to pass state-sanctioned standardized tests is no way you promote learning or inspire young minds. Neither is holding them captive in rooms eight hours a day, five days a week.

Oh. Ok. Then yeah. I read too much into that post.
 
What are his "direct ties" to organizations that oppose unions? ...

well, since you're unable of clicking a link I post and reading for yourself, I will post for you. from here: http://valleywag.gawker.com/silicon-valley-mogul-financed-california-lawsuit-to-end-1588947329:
Yet Welch and his nonprofit play a special role among a group of other nonprofits and personalities whose legal actions, school board campaigns, op-eds and overlapping advisory boards suggest a highly synchronized movement devoted to taking control of public education. The David and Heidi Welch Foundation, for example, has given to NewSchools Venture Fund, where Welch has been an "investment partner" and which invests in both charter schools and the cyber-charter industry, and has been linked [Champ edit - links explained here: http://www.thenation.com/blog/17767...-strong-ties-pearson-privatization-movement#] to the $9 billion-per-year textbook and testing behemoth Pearson. Welch has also supported Michelle Rhee's education-privatizing lobby StudentsFirst, most recently with a $550,000 bequest in 2012.

StudentsFirst also turned up on an early list of Students Matter's "advisory committee" that included ardent education privatizers Democrats for Education Reform, Parent Revolution and NewSchools Venture Fund. Both StudentsFirst and NewSchools Venture Fund also appear on a list of Vergara supporters that includes the California Charter Schools Association, along with Los Angeles Unified School District superintendent (and onetime Vergara co-defendant) John Deasy and former Oakland Unified School District superintendent Tony Smith.​

You apparently are not familiar with the sordid history of Michelle Rhee and StudentsFirst.

Welch's "philanthropic organization with the goal of education reform to benefit America's young students" has some vested financial interests in that.

you should've worded it like this: organization with the goal of education reform to benefit organizations he has invested in.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
...
My exposure to charter schools is a bit different than yours. I've seen several in non-affluent areas here pretty well received by the inhabitants. But hey, any good idea applied by corrupt politicians could end up hurting the people they intended to help. Chicago politicians aren't necessarily known for their integrity - I have two sisters that live there - so I get earfuls all the time.

...

anecdotal evidence. they may be "well-received by the inhabitants" but that doesn't mean they perform better.

One of the links I posted to Chicago showed that the only time in the city charters outperformed publics was in poor neighborhoods, and only then because charters could boot problem cases and troublemakers... the publics HAD to take them.
 
I didn't say it was purposeful. But teaching kids to pass state-sanctioned standardized tests is no way you promote learning or inspire young minds. Neither is holding them captive in rooms eight hours a day, five days a week.

I think we actually agree on this issue. The teacher's unions and a lot of people beside them are actually opposed to the state-sanctioned standardized tests. I am for the reasons I mentioned about the ham-handed way they're used to axe districts in poor areas... which it should be no surprise underperform districts in rich white areas.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.?

Bump! TAKE YOUR MEDICINE, BITCH!

So a three judge panel of the CA court of appeals unanimously overturned Judge Treu's weak-ass, poorly reasoned ruling in the lower court. delivers a big win for the teacher's unions, the school districts, and students they serve.

I said this ruling sounded like bullshit (see post #42). guess they didn't really have much evidence after all to support their contentions that tenure is unconstitutional.

the plaintiffs claim they'll appeal to the CA supreme court, but they're just going to get their asses handed to them there too. fuck em.
 
Bump! TAKE YOUR MEDICINE, BITCH!

So a three judge panel of the CA court of appeals unanimously overturned Judge Treu's weak-ass, poorly reasoned ruling in the lower court. delivers a big win for the teacher's unions, the school districts, and students they serve.

I said this ruling sounded like bullshit (see post #42). guess they didn't really have much evidence after all to support their contentions that tenure is unconstitutional.

the plaintiffs claim they'll appeal to the CA supreme court, but they're just going to get their asses handed to them there too. fuck em.

It sounds like they based their decision on the fact that tenure doesn't discriminate against certain groups of students (poor & minorities).

?Plaintiffs failed to show that the statutes themselves make any certain group of students more likely to be taught by ineffective teachers than any other group of students,? Division Two Presiding Justice Roger W. Boren wrote. ?The court?s job is merely to determine whether the statutes are constitutional, not if they are ?a good idea.??

This quote above implies that they may agree that the tenure isn't a good practice but the plaintiffs couldn't prove they were discriminated against.
 
Back
Top