Teacher Salary

[Jack Furr]

Once again I will not post to "unregistered". An entity afraid to use real nomenclature. Hide, lurk, pick, sort... Whatever.

[Unregistered]

You may want to look "nomenclature" up in the dictionary.

[Unregistered]

Bad teacher: does not let Lisa call the shots.

As opposed to the definitions of "good teacher" we see in here:

good teacher = all teachers, no matter how effective.

good teacher = union hack.

[Unregistered]

Once again I will not post to "unregistered". An entity afraid to use real nomenclature. Hide, lurk, pick, sort... Whatever.

Like this furball thinks he can bully us into paying the fee just to have the ego trip having a little made up name next to our posting. Fine, Furry, don't post at all!

[Unregistered]

Why do we have to be payed so little? Come on I've been teaching for 7 years, and still get a bum salary, we have needs.

Go out to the real world of work and you will want to come back to teaching. You will not survive, especially the teachers with tenure.

[Be Just]

Go out to the real world of work and you will want to come back to teaching. You will not survive, especially the teachers with tenure.

This, obviously, from a person to whom the "real world" is simply a metaphor. I spent 33 years working various fleids before becoming a "tenured" teacher. I made far more money working many fewer hours in much better conditions before becoming a teacher. I teach because it is what I am called to. If you don't feel that call, by all means seek employment elsewhere. For example, sell textbooks!

[Unregistered]

.

We want tenure, but think no one else should have it. I sure as Hell want to be able to fire my mechanic if I think he isn't doing a good job. If I should be able to fire him, then I think the state should be able to fire me.

There is no RIGHT to tenure. If there was, everyone would have it.

I have to side with b just on this one. I think Lisa is a plant who comes onto this forum to try to cheapen our profession from within. All rights are negotiated. Don't let union busters disquised as well meaning educators influence us teachers. You have a right to a job with dignity. It's tough enough without all this sniping at the few benefits that make our profession an honorable one that attracts the brightest and best. Our society only respects money and power. We teachers must hold on to what little gains have been won with hardship and sacrifice. b just is right. Don't trust these scabs who pose as teachers.[/QUOTE]

First, instead of addressing the core problems with teacher unions, one of which is obvious and well articulated by Lisa, you can only resort to dismissing HER as a "poser"-- sneaking into this bastion of teacher-inspiring bonding discussions to undermine, weaken, and influence teachers?

Second, you realize that you just defined the purpose of unions AND teaching as the acquisition of power and money, and equated that with respect?

The unions have turned into bullies and extortionists, and serve the weakest and worst at the expense of the best and brightest. They ultimately undermine education, students, and our country. Their honorable and useful purposes have passed and have been contorted and twisted to maintain power, money, and control.

Someone who is closed-minded, subverts honest and important debate into personal attacks, advocates for poor teachers over quality education and competency-based compensation, and ultimately equates power and money as the measure of teaching success and respect.... that's the person who's posing as a teacher, and getting paid for it thanks to unions.

This is an ideological conflict. There is validity on both sides. I would like to hear the answer to the question posed that no one has answered so far: "Would you support an incompetent teacher being fired?"

There is clear evidence that unions have become a vehicle to protect horrific and unsafe teachers. The product has been separated from the producer and the consumer- education has been in this disconnected vacuum for too long because of unions.

Teachers are the distributors of education, and only when consumers are the measure and dictator of production and distribution does the system work. Administration isn't actually who decides which teacher is competent; this is the union mentality. Competition and consumer-based selection is what will cull the ineffective teachers and reward the effective- with more money than a union will ever negotiate for (and usurp by force), with real power, and with actual respect for the art of their teaching.

[Unregistered]

This is Lisa. I am not so much against unions, but instead I oppose many of the things our unions fight for.

I am a tenured teacher. If I wanted to call it quits and just go through the motions, I could. If I wanted to teach out of the book in a monotone fashion, I could. I could be a real bad teacher, and there would be nothing my Principal could do about it. And some of my colleagues have chosen this route.

Now, does that make sense? Is this what we fought for?

Why don't principals have tenure? We were notified that we lost our principal (apparently a new superintendent wants to bring in a colleague to run the school). Where was his protection? A colleague's school has gone through seven principals in ten years. Some of the firings have been heavily political.

Yet, if administrators were given tenure, do you know who would howl the most? We would. "What if he does a terrible job?" "What if the school performances plummet?" We would cry that giving a principal tenure means getting stuck with him, and that principals would quit working hard and become surly. Exactly what happens to many teachers once they are given tenure.

I would love to see one reason that principals shouldn't be given tenure that also doesn't apply to teachers.

Unions should fight more more money and equipment, not tenure. Unions should fight FOR, not against, merit pay. In fact, unions should be working with the districts to set the targets for merit pay. Unions should be setting standards for being a member -- don't teach well, get thrown out. And unions should quit trying to prevent administrators from seeing what takes place inside the classroom. Good teachers don't mind being observed on a reasonable basis and receiving feedback -- how else can teachers improve their skills? In fact, the union rep should join in on the observations to see who really deserves the honor of union membership. (My gut feeling is that most union reps would be shocked if they see what some of the union members call teaching.)

[Be Just]

I appreciate your response, but I have to disagree with your depiction of unions. It is easy for those who grew up in a society with a certain amount of protection for workers to forget that only a generation or two ago Upton Sinclair was exposing the misery of the workers and their families.
The arguments posed by those who would beneift by destroying the few remaining worker protections center on concern for quality and emphasizing such myths as those of the "bad teacher."

By getting you to center your thoughts on protecting the innocent from the harmful affects of the "bad teacher" they are able to take your mind away from the rights of teachers to a lifelong profession. When you picked teaching as a carreer, did you join with the understanding that you would be allowed to work only during your most productive years? Do you agree that as teachers reach retirement age and they begin to slow down they should be disgarded with no benefits? Do you really think that the teaching profession will be improved if we treat teachers like equipment that can be disgarded as soon as the new model comes along?

Of course, teacher protections, like all other humanitarian concerns, such as the right to a fair trial, cause problems and expenses. We could have a more efficient system, theoretically, if we did away with the Bill of Rights. The problem of a workable system will always be finding the balance between fairness and efficiency.

This Brave New Classroom that you envision where teachers are competing against one another and the lowest performers are sacrificed on the altar of productivity may seem appealing, but professions have been run differently than slave camps precisely because human experience has found that dignity, though costly, provides a better outcome for all.

Do you really want to have the Dr. who performs your next operation be someone who is bitter because of the slavelike aspects of his job? Do you really think you can improve education by cheapening the quallity of teachers' lives? Think these things over before you trash the hard won protections that we have.

[Unregistered]

I appreciate your response, but I have to disagree with your depiction of unions. It is easy for those who grew up in a society with a certain amount of protection for workers to forget that only a generation or two ago Upton Sinclair was exposing the misery of the workers and their families.
The arguments posed by those who would beneift by destroying the few remaining worker protections center on concern for quality and emphasizing such myths as those of the "bad teacher."

I am all for the union fighting to prevent miserable conditions and pay. But what does tenure have anything to do with collapsing coal mines? To equate "being evaluated" and "having the potential to be fired for substandard teaching" with the conditions that created unions (unsafe working conditions, horrible pay) is ridiculous.

By getting you to center your thoughts on protecting the innocent from the harmful affects of the "bad teacher" they are able to take your mind away from the rights of teachers to a lifelong profession.

What right to a lifelong profession are you talking about? Who created this right? The mechanic down the street isn't entitled to a lifelong profession. The doctor isn't. No lawyer that I know is entitled to such a deal.

When did it come about that teachers were entitled to teach for as long as they wish no matter how poorly they performed?

When you picked teaching as a carreer, did you join with the understanding that you would be allowed to work only during your most productive years?

I certainly did not think I should be allowed to teach if I was no longer productive. Is that what you are arguing?

There is nothing that prevents a 60-year old person from being an effective teacher, so this notion that we have to install tenure to prevent old people from being fired because of their age is simply wrong.


Do you agree that as teachers reach retirement age and they begin to slow down they should be disgarded with no benefits?

They should teach for as long as they are productive. Are you arguing that they should be allowed to teach no matter how productive? Because if you agree with tenure, that is exactly what you are saying.

Do you really think that the teaching profession will be improved if we treat teachers like equipment that can be disgarded as soon as the new model comes along?

If the new model is better than the old model, then I'm all for it. My advice to older teachers (and I'm getting there myself), "Stay on top of things."

Of course, teacher protections, like all other humanitarian concerns, such as the right to a fair trial, cause problems and expenses. We could have a more efficient system, theoretically, if we did away with the Bill of Rights. The problem of a workable system will always be finding the balance between fairness and efficiency.

How is tenure balanced? A balanced approach would be to have PERIODIC reviews, where teachers are given ample warnings that their performance is lagging and they need to step it up. That requires observation and evaluation and the right to dismiss a teacher for poor performance.

This Brave New Classroom that you envision where teachers are competing against one another and the lowest performers are sacrificed on the altar of productivity may seem appealing, but professions have been run differently than slave camps precisely because human experience has found that dignity, though costly, provides a better outcome for all.

What professions are you referring? I am not aware of any professions that protect incompetent members. Maybe the Supreme Court, but the selection process to become a member is rigid.

Do you really want to have the Dr. who performs your next operation be someone who is bitter because of the slavelike aspects of his job?

My doctor is NOT TENURED. Why in the world are you using the example of a non-tenured professional to shore up your argument for tenure?

Do you really think you can improve education by cheapening the quallity of teachers' lives? Think these things over before you trash the hard won protections that we have.

Disbanding tenure wouldn't cheapen my life one iota.

I have asked the following questions numerous times. I will ask you:

If the man working on your house is doing a poor job, should you have the right to fire him?

If a policeman shows disinterest in his work and performs poorly, should we have the right to fire him?

If your answer to the above questions is yes, then are you not (according to your logic) interfering with their "right to a lifelong profession"?

Should your principal and the rest of the administration be granted tenure? Why or why not?

If not, then how do you explain why YOU should be granted tenure, but not the principal?

[Tom Tuttle]

You planning on offshoring our jobs, lisa? The future will find a Bangladeshi instructor on video with a minimum wage yard duty type to keep the kids in line. Of course, neither the instructor or the monitor will have health insurance or retirement. Thanks lisa, for helping to make education run like a big box store.

[Unregistered]

Sounds like Tom is volunteering to answer my questions. Excellent.

If the man working on your house is doing a poor job, should you have the right to fire him?

If a policeman shows disinterest in his work and performs poorly, should we have the right to fire him?

If your answer to the above questions is yes, then are you not (according to your logic) interfering with their "right to a lifelong profession"?

Should your principal and the rest of the administration be granted tenure? Why or why not?

If not, then how do you explain why YOU should be granted tenure, but not the principal?

[Tom Tuttle]

You may have a hard time understanding this, lisa, but the world would indeed be a better place if the people who did the work were given some dignity and security. You might do better to start with the top of the pyramid to begin asking your questions. Should the president and senators be given a lifetime salary for the term of office wherein they "serve" for four or eight years? Should the CEO make millions while the workers go without health care or hope for retirement?

The man working on my house, the policeman, even the principal deserve some security in their jobs and in their lives. Give them the same protections we give the politicians. In the meantime, stop tearing down the few benefits left to teachers. Spend your energies trying to win rights for other workers instead of trying to take them away for teachers.

[Unregistered]

should you have the right to fire him?


What a world it would be if the wealthy and powerful no longer had "the right" to impoverish those who displeased them. Sounds a bit like "let them eat cake."

[Unregistered]

Well, well, well.... two more pipe in that cannot answer the questions. Let me ask again:

If the man working on your house is doing a poor job, should you have the right to fire him?

Hmmm... that shouldn't require much more than a simple yes or no.

If a policeman shows disinterest in his work and performs poorly, should we have the right to fire him?

We shouldn't be allowed to impoverish this poor policeman, so I suppose he gets to stay on the job as long as he wants, right?

C'mon out and say it.

[i]If your answer to the above questions is yes, then are you not (according to your logic) interfering with their "right to a lifelong profession"?

Should your principal and the rest of the administration be granted tenure? Why or why not?

If not, then how do you explain why YOU should be granted tenure, but not the principal?[/]i

You seem to be great at coming up with Doomsday scenarios, but not so good at answering simple questions. Cat got your tongue?

[Unregistered]

You may have a hard time understanding this, lisa, but the world would indeed be a better place if the people who did the work were given some dignity and security. You might do better to start with the top of the pyramid to begin asking your questions. Should the president and senators be given a lifetime salary for the term of office wherein they "serve" for four or eight years?

Absolutely not. But I am not privvy to their salaries and benefits so I cannot answer your question. If you know what they make and for how long, post the information here and we can discuss it. (Although I don't know why all of a sudden two wrongs make a right.)

Should the CEO make millions while the workers go without health care or hope for retirement?

That is up to the shareholders, since they own the company.

The man working on my house, the policeman, even the principal deserve some security in their jobs and in their lives. Give them the same protections we give the politicians.

Answer my question: If the carpenter was working on YOUR house and doing a poor job of it, should YOU have the right to fire HIM?

C'mon, a simple yes or no will do.

[Unregistered]

You planning on offshoring our jobs, lisa? The future will find a Bangladeshi instructor on video with a minimum wage yard duty type to keep the kids in line. Of course, neither the instructor or the monitor will have health insurance or retirement. Thanks lisa, for helping to make education run like a big box store.

I wrote the email critical of unions (as my first post) that was responded to first by Lisa and then by a thoughtful post with socialist views . I wanted to first offer my appreciation for this experience: being able to explore this issue with so many experienced and insightful teachers has mattered to me and is developing a better understanding in general. Background seems relevant, too, because if we consider each other's experiences, we might not oppose each other's posts outright but may give different credence to them. Sort of - "beyond right and wrong there is field, I'll meet you there."

So in the same spirit, I'm middle-aged, 20 years in the private sector, now a public school teacher. I have some understanding of most viewpoints and their validity, and the sincere beliefs of some that without unions or tenured teaching we'd be ravaged with our children shipped off to virtual school factories, and suffering McDonald's or (gasp) Walmart wages, with no voice or superhero rep to overcome the locked doors of a burning building or to blow the whistle on the moldy Wal-Mart cookies dusted off and repackaged.

I am supportive of restricted capitalism and against the socialistic mentality that unions have shifted into because of my actual experiences. Among them, my husband was affected by the closing of a steel mill because of the artificial wages demanded by the union. Kaiser Steel in Fontana, CA, had it's doors closed due in large part to the inflated wages and demands of the union. Ultimately a Japanese company bought it for a song, had hundreds of their workers dismantle the factory, shipped it to Japan, and rebuilt it there.

This is an economic model, but I believe it sheds some light on educational vulnerabililty also. Most of the posts here are about teachers: their security, rights, protections, deficits, needs, wants, suffering, abuses, etc. This is what the other union did: ignored the relationship between wages and production in the steel mill and only focused on the workers in isolation.

A socialistic model is the same, as is true for the socialistic post in response also. The educational system is not created and run as an entity to serve teachers, as an economic model is not set up solely to serve the workers. They are PART of the model, and serving them is PART of the purpose, but unions are inherently undermining because they ONLY serve the teachers if they continue with their current focus. I was shocked by the blunt truthfulness of a quote in the LA times of CTA president at the time who said, "When kids pay union dues, I'll represent their interests."

When one part of the equation gets out of balance, and a union and it's members consider the primary function of the workplace to be their employment interests, then they ultimately are self-defeating as in the case of the steel mill. We must have our first and primary focus always on the purpose and goal of education: globally competitve, personally and civically sustaining, equitable educational outcomes. That's the first qualifier. If there is a benefit the unions can advocate for that doesn't undermine that purpose, great. But when their central usefulness evolves into 'teachers first' then the boat is doomed to sink, or the school system dismantled and shipped elsewhere.

As an aside (and to guarantee the longest / boring post award and being banned) -- While Upton Sinclair, the venerated socialist candidate from coast to coast, is sensational reading and a favorite in our social studies class, it's also a great argument against the lassez faire institutionalization of more than just the meat packing industry, labor, and reform - it is a powerful illustration of the side effects for institutionalization, period (including the institutionalization of the American mind).

Again, I have a different ideological base than the union / socialist viewpoint. I believe that communist, socialist, and restricted capitalist political and economic experiments have produced clear results: the ideals of the left and "beyond the left" are absolutely worthy and just ideals, but the methods prescribed to reach them don't work. Lisa put it better, but the bottom line is that the union doesn't have to bust, but it's role should serve the goals of education first because THAT'S what their constituents (teachers) must serve to do their job, not teachers first at any expense. If the students aren't protected, if they aren't served in ways that reasonably meet the goals of the whole point of having schools and teachers, then the unions are killing their host.

If teachers aren't hired, fired, evaluated, probated, compensated, etc., in regards to their effectiveness for students first, then the rest of the arguments about humanity, rights, security, and protection are moot (I love that word too). It's not either /or to anyone but union supporters. Most of the population understands the basic tenent that they need to be employable to be employed, they must be worthy of compensation, they have a fiduciary agreement for employment that is not an unalienable right. But they also understand that they do not have to accept abuse, discrimination, etc. Why would teachers have any different social or employment contract? If organized labor is chosen, fine - but that doesn't supercede the basic tenents of employment.

Basically unions have become self-serving, and instead of mutually benefiting individuals, the organized whole, and the students, they serve as a huge powerbase for money, politics, and ideological control. They retain usefulness, and their power/fund base, via fear and insecurity- as mentioned in earlier posts.

I know this will be unpopular, and is too philosophical, and clearly far, far away from any other teacher I know or those on this site, but I'll be brave and say it anyway- educational unions that serve as defenders of those who disserve students hurt every aspect of education. When they are politically oriented beyond any scope of teacher advocacy, and are divorced from the purpose of ed., with a huge monopoly over revenue, government, and a major employment sector, they are themselves the biggest threat to education and progressive reform, and are a danger to democracy itself.

[Unregistered]

That may have been the best post I have seen on this forum.

I know this will be unpopular, and is too philosophical, and clearly far, far away from any other teacher I know or those on this site, but I'll be brave and say it anyway- educational unions that serve as defenders of those who disserve students hurt every aspect of education.

Which has been my chief gripe against what the teachers' unions have become.

Unions used to demand quality as a requirement for membership. The unions used to apprentice new workers. Remember the ad campaign, "Look for the union label"? The idea was that a union-made product was good because unions set high standards for membership.

What standards have the teachers' unions set? If anything, they oppose standards and fight for teachers who clearly do not possess the skills necessary to do a good job. In some districts they have prevented teachers from even being evaluated.

Unions should fight to retain the right to evaluate their own members using in-class visitations. They should fight to offer substandard teachers for dismissal as a means of keeping the quality of teaching high.

One reason wages are low is that teachers cannot be fired once they reach tenure. Since a district is forced to retain a teacher's services, there is no need to replace her, which drives the demand for teachers down. Since the standards needed to become a teacher are fairly low, then a glut of teaching candidates -- who will work for nearly anything -- manifests.

[Tom Tuttle]

If there is any justice in the life, those of you who spend so much energy trying to figure out how to add people to the growing unemployed will have the experience yourself very soon. Should those who dont meet standards lose their position? Sure. But only when we have a right to work and a right to decent living conditions for every American. It's not unattainable. The 400 billion spent in Iraq would have been sufficient to give every American a decent job.

Why should any company have a right to hire human beings and discard them? why shouldn't everyone be given a job for life? You don't perform in the classroom? fine, then you are forced to do some other task in the company until you earn the right to teach again. This isn't socialism, but compassionate capitalism, along the lines of that practiced in Japan and in the America of my youth.

The problem I have with your eagerness to see the guy in the next room thrown out on his ear is that it shows a complete lack of mercy. Human beings are not meant to be discardable. Why must you dedicate yourselves to perpetuating the idea that the only way to improve education is to go after teacher's jobs? Surely you can find other solutions. Pick up a book and read about ideas other than productivity through attrition.

[Unregistered]

If there is any justice in the life, those of you who spend so much energy trying to figure out how to add people to the growing unemployed...

Yeah, yeah, yeah... answer my questions:

If the man working on your house is doing a poor job, should you have the right to fire (discard) him?

If a policeman shows disinterest in his work and performs poorly, should we have the right to fire (discard) him?

If your answer to the above questions is yes, then are you not (according to your logic) interfering with their "right to a lifelong profession"?

Should your principal and the rest of the administration be granted tenure? Why or why not?

If not, then how do you explain why YOU should be granted tenure, but not the principal? (After all, we wouldn't want to discard the principal, would we?)

C'mon Tom, it is getting to be quite apparent that my questions give you some trouble.

[Unregistered]

Human beings are not meant to be discardable.

Unless these human beings happen to be the students taught by the horrible teacher. Discarded, indeed.

[Real Live WI Teacher]

[QUOTE=Tom Tuttle]
when we have a right to work and a right to decent living conditions for every American.
why shouldn't everyone be given a job for life? You don't perform in the classroom? fine, then you are forced to do some other task in the company until you earn the right to teach again.

This isn't socialism, but compassionate capitalism, along the lines of that practiced in Japan and in the America of my youth.

Why must you dedicate yourselves to perpetuating the idea that the only way to improve education is to go after teacher's jobs? Surely you can find other solutions. QUOTE]

Cough, choke... I'm doing my best to understand your true position, but it's very difficult. Everyone is not meant to be a teacher, or a brain surgeon, or a farmer. Again, your answer to the dilemma's facing education is to make it all about the teachers. The best way to serve students is to use their education as a filler or means to supply welfare to every person in the name of work?!

Japan practices compassionate conservatism??!! Can you actually say that with a straight face? A right to work for every American is already the law of the land, everyone does have this right to pursue gainful employment. They do so buy entering into the prima facie contracts and literal contracts for employment. Contracts require services or products to be exchanged for due consideration. Defining that consideration, and retaining the requirement for certain services and products is an essential part of retaining and negotiating terms of employment.

And being guaranteed a job for life, and having Big Brother decide what menial task you'll perform until you earn the right to be back into the classroom is incompatible with free market capitalism, even in the "compassionate capitalist Japanese" society, and makes socialism look like lassez-fair capitalism... it's more reminiscent of communist China in the the hey day of people's republic. That draconian concept, and that you really believe this schmaltz that guaranteed civil service models for our educational system is a compassionate answer to employment problems, is a dangerous possibility that I find alarming.

Comparing our very low, and still improving, employment figures (under 5% with employment growth monthly) with Socialist countries like France (10% overall and 23% for under 26 yo), and you see that the biggest downfall of permanent, guaranteed-for-life protections regardless of effectiveness or production is the opposite of your clear and heartfelt desire to support gainful employment for all who seek it.

And who opposes the desperately needed reforms in such socialist countries? Unions. Who's striking to oppose any reforms, which mainly focus on the right to fire for poor performance? Teacher unions.

You cannot separate the purpose of the job from the security and pay, it goes together. And I also believe that teachers aren't the focus of education, nor their security or income provision the purpose. I believe that the students are the focus and purpose for teachers to exist, and if you serve them well the rest will follow. Just like real life.

I share your compassion for the right to seek and maintain employment. It's up to you to enjoy the power and opportunities that can secure the job and income you choose.

And also, would we ever, EVER, apply your philosophy to our students? Would we ever say that every student is guaranteed an A, and guaranteed to go to the same college, and has a right to graduate from high school, REGARDLESS of effort, competency, mastery, progress, participation, improvement, or acutal proficiency? Don't we believe in equal opportunity, equal access, equal support and encouragement, but that the outcome is the product of combined effort, ability, achievement, and performance?

Should we have a student "union" that organizes to demand grade equality regardless of performance? Or that everyone has a right to guaranteed acceptance into MIT? Or is there some connection that should be made between performance and outcome, opportunity and personal responsibility?

[A non a Miss]

Is this site Teachnology? It should maybe be titled anti teacher nology. Isn't it odd how teachers on this site are so passionate about improving education by firing other teachers? Hmm, I wonder who's behind this movement?

I agree with Tom. Dedicate your passions to improving education. If you cant focus on anything but employement, try sticking up for the American worker instead of attacking worker rights.

I too have a hard time seeing the faces behind this attacks as belong to real teachers.

[Unregistered]

Is this site Teachnology? It should maybe be titled anti teacher nology. Isn't it odd how teachers on this site are so passionate about improving education by firing other teachers? Hmm, I wonder who's behind this movement?

I agree with Tom. Dedicate your passions to improving education. If you cant focus on anything but employement, try sticking up for the American worker instead of attacking worker rights.

I too have a hard time seeing the faces behind this attacks as belong to real teachers.

I'm sure it's hard to imagine that real teachers do understand the negative impact that tenure has on education, and the need to have real-world constraints applied to the profession. I don't want any teacher fired, I want teachers to teach well.

Why is that threatening? How is that anti-anything? Well-chosen words, well-aimed attackes, lofty ideals disconnected from reality, self-assuaging and -centered positions disguised as social justice don't support education, they support the drains that are syphoning off the life-blood of education and the delusions that cloud the issue.

You can again attempt to side-step content and dismiss me as what... an anti-teacher? lol... I am a teacher, and there aren't many that are open to concepts outside of their security or union line, but there are growing numbers. Situations like those in France are illustrating how the worker protections, jobs for life, and benefits have prevented investment and growth that can sustain the artificial demands and created a temporary workforce, leff productivity and efficacy, and staggering unemployment. The socialist union mentality has strangled the economy and enterprise.

I sometimes wonder what makes this divide in understanding. We all care about education, we all feel we have valuable and true positions, how can they be so far apart? Do you really believe I'm "anti-teacher"? I AM a teacher, I am completely devoted to education. I don't believe you are "anti-student" even though I believe you don't understand how tenured teaching is.

But I also don't understand, and haven't heard an explanation, for how the fundamental separations are made that are required for the tenure, teacher-protectionist, socialist union model... the economy is what provides jobs, not the "government" or schools. The taxes pay for your job, they come from enterprise. If the economy tanks, do you think it will affect teacher job security? If it came between an effective, really good teacher going and one going thru the motions below the level of mediocrity, should that be a consideration? Do you see any connection between teaching and the economic contraints of the rest of the country? Do you feel performance of the teacher or the student ever have any connection to employment?

[Unregistered]

A non a miss said:
I too have a hard time seeing the faces behind this attacks as belong to real teachers.

Did anyone else catch the irony in this sentence?

I'm reading the last posts, and I notice a pattern. Fact and reason on one side and then emotional and inflammatory attacks on the other.

You figure which is which, but I'm leaning towards the side that's not saying someone's evil and trying to discard people, or heartless and out to fire poor hardworking teachers for no reason, or that if you don't think the same you are a monster sitting around looking for ways to make people poor and abused and unvalued.

I'd signed up for the "starve the masses" campaign, you found me out!!! Or even better, if you aren't on the baseless emotional bandwagon, you're a PLANT! A SPY! One of those anti-employment, teachers belong in the gutter, lets pretend to be one so we could hurt them posers.

Wow, I'm definitely persuaded and will give up my evil ways to distract, distort, and concentrate on superficial platitudes and exaggerated emotionally charged indefensible accusations because that's what REAL teachers do. I'll have to dumb down my vocabulary and confuse my grammar, but we'll edmacate them anti-teacher, anti-job, anti-sun and air school hating darkness-lovers! They dont wants tenure coz they want it dark all the time. If you never want no sun, then join with them coz thats what they want and will make happen to.

[Unregistered]

Dedicate your passions to improving education.

One way to improve education is to improve the quality of teaching. And one way to improve the quality of teaching is to replace bad teachers with better teachers.

But such common sense is somehow out of place in the Teachers Lounge. Instead, their cure for our education problems revolves around "outing" those who disagree with the union line.

I swear, if the teacher's union told its members to drink gasoline, teachers would line up at Chevron.

[Unregistered]

Unless these human beings happen to be the students taught by the horrible teacher. Discarded, indeed.
i.o.w. human beings are to be discarded in your plan. Why bother teaching? Most homeless are children. Throw them out now and get it over with.

[Unregistered]

i.o.w. human beings are to be discarded in your plan. Why bother teaching? Most homeless are children. Throw them out now and get it over with.

Is there a logical thread that connects one sentence to the other in the above statement.

By the way, are you willing to answer the following questions?

If the man working on your house is doing a poor job, should you have the right to fire (discard) him?

If a policeman shows disinterest in his work and performs poorly, should we have the right to fire (discard) him?

If your answer to the above questions is yes, then are you not (according to your logic) interfering with their "right to a lifelong profession"?

Should your principal and the rest of the administration be granted tenure? Why or why not?

If not, then how do you explain why YOU should be granted tenure, but not the principal? (After all, we wouldn't want to discard the principal, would we?)

[Real Live WI Teacher]

Is there a logical thread that connects one sentence to the other in the above statement.

By the way, are you willing to answer the following questions?

If the man working on your house is doing a poor job, should you have the right to fire (discard) him?

If a policeman shows disinterest in his work and performs poorly, should we have the right to fire (discard) him?

If your answer to the above questions is yes, then are you not (according to your logic) interfering with their "right to a lifelong profession"?

Should your principal and the rest of the administration be granted tenure? Why or why not?

If not, then how do you explain why YOU should be granted tenure, but not the principal? (After all, we wouldn't want to discard the principal, would we?)

I was looking for the point also, and believe she took your reply earlier that was pointing out how poor teachers' entitlement an protection is a form of discarding human beings (students) than ending employment with an ineffective teacher in reverse. --Must have thought you were actually advocating discarding students, since you are against tenure it's not a far cry from what can expected, right?

I can answer your questions, but I don't want to rob others of the understanding that these answers bring when you answer them honestly and with reason.

Can I just answer one without being too greedy??!! How about the easy one- the police officer. They have an effective union, and have collective bargaining, etc. But they do NOT have tenure, and could not have the quagmire education has found itself in because firing incompetent, ineffective, and poorly performing police officers is REQUIRED, not only "allowed." It's certainly the most just, humane, and rational agreement. Same with other service-oriented jobs, such as nurses. You wouldn't keep one that wasn't competent, you would have to answer for it and pay for negligence towards those you serve.

But when it comes to teachers, our children are abused and neglected by some teachers, and it takes an average of 3 years and 30,000 to try and fire them. Out of 80,000 teachers in NY public schools in 5 years TWO were fired. There are many recent statistics being disclosed currently, and these more extreme examples also show that those who are just "ineffective" are certainly not going to have to answer for it under the tenure system.

[Unregistered]

The right wing hacks are all over this web site pretending to be teachers and going on an on about teacher tenure, one of the last elements of freedom of expression left. You aren't fooling anyone so give it a rest. We teachers stand together and won't go down without a fight, so go capture an innocent farmer to torture or something and let the teachers be.

[Unregistered]

I encourage you to ignore the Due Process Laws. We have been firing teachers left and right. Sometimes the unions sue on behalf of the individuals, but the courts rarely side with indivduals for any reason in our state, against any corporate or state institution. The barest "proof" of misconduct is all that is required these days.

It is a real boon for our district, because it is so much cheaper to hire new teachers and they are easily frightened into total obediance to authority.

Don't be cowed by unions. The worm has turned and teachers have fewer rights then most assume. We have successfully gone after any liberal leaning teachers in our district and they have joined the citizens of New Orleans and other below standard types who are now "lookin' for a home." ;-}

[Unregistered]

The right wing hacks are all over this web site pretending to be teachers and going on an on about teacher tenure, one of the last elements of freedom of expression left. You aren't fooling anyone so give it a rest. We teachers stand together and won't go down without a fight, so go capture an innocent farmer to torture or something and let the teachers be.

Oh, how logical. I especially love how the teaching profession in the public school uses the freedom of expression argument.

We are not talking here about universities, where the primary role of a professor is to research and publish.

Just another pro-tenure teacher unable to answer the following questions:

If the man working on your house is doing a poor job, should you have the right to fire (discard) him?

If a policeman shows disinterest in his work and performs poorly, should we have the right to fire (discard) him?

If your answer to the above questions is yes, then are you not (according to your logic) interfering with their "right to a lifelong profession"?

Should your principal and the rest of the administration be granted tenure? Why or why not?

If not, then how do you explain why YOU should be granted tenure, but not the principal? (After all, we wouldn't want to discard the principal, would we?)

[Unregistered]

I encourage you to ignore the Due Process Laws...

And another.

C'mon, answer my questions! I certainly don't have a problem answering them. Why can't you?

[Tom Tuttle]

To Lisa: Apparantly you don't want an answer, and this is simply a rhetorical device you learned by watching the Fox News or listening to Rush. I answered that question in depth. The answer is NO. You don't just disgard human beings.

The analogy of the man you hired to work on your house is not a parallel, but the others are, since they are dealing with professions and not one-time, short time assignments.

Again, I know you don't like hearing that others have a different perspective, but any company or institution who hires an individual for a contractual period must abide by that contract. That prevents companies from disposing of pregnant mothers, ailing soon to be retirees, and persons from oppossing political persuasions, to cite just a few examples.

Teachers and other professionals work hard to get into a lifelong career. Management must find other motivators besides throwing people out on the streets everytime things do not work out as they wish.

To the person who is boasting of bypassing legal and moral standards to fire teachers for political reasons: you are helping to create a lawless society. We were just coming out of a time of rising crime from the last time high placed leaders showed the public it is perfectly okay to break whatever laws you want as long as you are powerful enough to get away with it. Don't think the children aren't watching your example and there will be the devil to pay.

[Unregistered]

To Lisa: Apparantly you don't want an answer, and this is simply a rhetorical device you learned by watching the Fox News or listening to Rush. I answered that question in depth. The answer is NO. You don't just disgard human beings.

First you say "no."

The analogy of the man you hired to work on your house is not a parallel, but the others are, since they are dealing with professions and not one-time, short time assignments.

Now you are hinting that the answer is "yes, I would fire him."

You never answer my questions directly. Instead, you weasel out by going into tangents.

A man is working on your house. You notice that he has relatively little skill and is doing a poor job of it. Do you fire him? Yes or no?

I find it laughable how it is okay for you to "discard" humans as long as they are doing non-professional, short-term jobs. How nice.

What is even more funny is what you imply -- that firing someone is acceptable if he is only going to screw up for a short time, but if he is on a long-term assignment then he should be allowed to keep on plugging away.

By the way, what about my other questions:

If a policeman shows disinterest in his work and performs poorly, should we have the right to fire (discard) him?

If your answer to the above questions is yes, then are you not (according to your logic) interfering with their "right to a lifelong profession"?

Should your principal and the rest of the administration be granted tenure? Why or why not?

Why can't you answer my questions directly, one by one?

Again, I know you don't like hearing that others have a different perspective, but any company or institution who hires an individual for a contractual period must abide by that contract.

That prevents companies from disposing of pregnant mothers, ailing soon to be retirees, and persons from oppossing political persuasions, to cite just a few examples.

What about incompetent employees? I notice you failed to mention them in your statement. Should they be protected, or discarded? Take your choice.

To the person who is boasting of bypassing legal and moral standards to fire teachers for political reasons:

Think: Sarcasm

[Tom Tuttle]

I thought I spelled this out. I have been an independent contractor (like the guy who works on your house) and I worked from job to job. If I didn't get one job, I got another. If one guy didn't like my work, fine, I moved on to the next job. Him firing me did not put me out of work, anymore than him not hiring me in the first place did so. It's the tenative nature of agreement.

On the other hand, firing a teacher means the loss of profession. It is like disbarring an attorney. Professionals enter into agreements for the long haul. Blithely comparing the two is either an attempt at muddying the waters of not understanding the ramifications of your own analogy.

Getting back to your other comparisons. Everyone who takes a job as a principal knows that it is a dog eat dog position with little chance of long term employment. I don't get why anyone would take the job, but some people are so attracted by power and prestige that they are willing to sacrifice security and peace of mind, evidently.

A young person who signs on with a school district makes what amounts to as a career long commitment. That is the difference. Again, either you are purposely confusing the issue or you fail to grasp the distinctions.

I do think the closest comparision with teachers is law enforcement. A cop who is fired cannot simply go to another precinct of law enforcement agency for a job. He or she is pretty much out of a careeer. For that reason, cops lose their jobs rarely and only for gross malfeasance, pretty much like teachers.

The point I am making is that the ability to fire people is largely dependent on the agreement, tacit or explicit, that was in place at the time of hiring. Teachers are not blithley fired because it would be a violation of the terms of employement.

That said, should we alter those terms for incoming teachers? Well, if you work in a district with a glut of teachers, then, sure, why not? But if, like me, you are always amazed that someone really wants to take on this job, and take anyone brave enough to attempt it, then you'll probably have to live withy the rules as they've been set up.

[Unregistered]

Think: Sarcasm

Think again, sister. I wasn't kidding. The only thing left of the unions is the perception that the working man has a leg to stand on. You don't believe me? Fire somebody and see what happens in court. Then you've got the rest of the crew by the shorties.
From this woman's perspective, it's about time. Wake up teachers! You too are expendable in a world where the bottom line is the only reality that matters.

[Real Live WI Teacher]

Enough of the hysterical, anectodal, marginalizing, waaa-waaa consipiracy smoke-screen, it's not working and is very transparent.

I've given numbers, where are yours?

Teachers are tossed out with nary a whimper? No one, not even the most deluded self-satisfying namby-pamby, believes that. Throw out some reality, some real numbers, BRING IT ON.

Right-wing hack, is that the best you've got? Aren't you embarrassed by your inability to stand on fact and reason; that every retort is personal or schizophrenic?

I love teaching, I have high hopes for education, I believe in the necessity of honest, open debate about this devastating parasite destroying my profession.

Do you so quickly capitulate to the suspicion that liberal = union, that it's a paradigm and ideology holding on to power and control, so if someone is questioning one aspect of the liberal aka union line they MUST be conservative? Conservatives aren't included in your party?

You make the case that unions are political entities, the questions being asked and answered in non-answers are proof that there aren't real issues or rationale, but only cows and sheep who are dependent on their domestication, who only get riled up if their hay isn't provided and the barn door is left open.

Your pogram that dumbs down the teaching profession, aka tenure that protects the worst and weakest, will also dumb down the rest of the population. But that would benefit the further domestication of everyone, and then there won't be such trouble-makers questioning the true results and realities of such exploitive practices... we'll all be tenured liberals in the new collective, right?

Or are only certain people going to have the right to work, the right to be protected from being discarded, the right to a profession no matter what their performance and competency? Is this really then about equality, rights, social justice, or can you see the hypocrisy in your attempt to make a distinction, and only give a few select people "equal" "rights".

Obviously the "real teachers" are only going to continue with "poser!" and "meanie!" responses, but I'm the kind of teacher who keeps on trying and offering opportunities for growth. I am in special ed after all.

[Unregistered]

Nice try Rush. But all the verbage doesn't cover up your intent to hamstring unions so your bosses can continue to turn the Land of the Free into the Land of the Corporate Boss. With total control all 3 branches of gov. and ownership of the press, the victim pose only sells to your target audience.

[Unregistered]

My wife, a high-school math school, started as a school teacher in 2000, taught 3 years at an inner-city school and did well always having satisfactory to excellent evaluations. She is definitely a teacher for the love of teaching. Unfortunately, my job transferred me to another state and her new teaching assignment (she was hired quickly given her performance at her previous school) started out well, but has ended up with her being labeled as an "unsatisfactory" teacher with recommendation not to re-new her for 4th-year probationary status. Yet prior to this year, she had a total of 5 years of satisfactory-to-excellent evaulations (including 2 years at her current school) and did everything the district wanted her to do to improve (including attending professional development seminars and shadowing).

Is this how teaching is? I have never seen her so shaken in her confidence. She really feels as if the district wanted her to pass more students and accept poor student behavior (freshmen classes were her hardest to control) even if she felt like she had done everything as ethically as she could. It's really been hard for her and makes her question whether being a teacher is worth it, not because of the poor pay or long hours, but due to the lack of administrative support. During one of her evaluations this year, she was told that she had poor classroom management, but when she virtually begged for help having exhausted all approaches she could think of, her principal had no concrete solutions other than to keep trying. And this particular evaluation came less than 3 months before her "unsatisfactory" evaluation. How are you able to adapt in so short a time and is there any way for her to bounce back from this and still be a teacher? How quickly should a "bad" teacher be fired? Is tenure to blame for my wife's situation? Any suggestions?

[Unregistered]

That said, should we alter those terms for incoming teachers? Well, if you work in a district with a glut of teachers, then, sure, why not?

Wait a minute, you said earlier that teachers shouldn't be "discarded." Now you are saying that it would be appropriate, in some circumstances, to make them agree to a contract so that you can, in fact, discard them.

Worse, you are willing to set up these non-tenure contracts in situations where there is a buyer's market, precisely the situation where they will have a hard time finding another job once released.

[Unregistered]

Or are only certain people going to have the right to work, the right to be protected from being discarded, the right to a profession no matter what their performance and competency?

I see you get it.

If someone is working on your house and you don't like his job? Fire him! After all, he can always get another job (hopefully).

Don't like a principal? Fire him! After all, he is rich and powerful so why should anyone protect him? (Not sure how rich and powerful he will be unemployed, but that's his problem.)

Is this really then about equality, rights, social justice, or can you see the hypocrisy in your attempt to make a distinction, and only give a few select people "equal" "rights".

Bingo! I wish I had your ability to state it so succintly.

[Unregistered]

On the other hand, firing a teacher means the loss of profession. It is like disbarring an attorney. Professionals enter into agreements for the long haul.

You are clearly incorrect. Disbarring an attorney would be more like yanking a teacher's credential, not dismissing her from employment. When a teacher is fired, she retains her credential and can seek employment elsewhere. In fact, attorneys are fired by law firms all the time. They are free to seek employment elsewhere. And a fired attorney is going to have a stigma attached to his resume, just like a teacher.

So the two are very analagous:

Public school teacher: Works for the government. Requires a credential in order to work. When dismissed retains credential and can seek work elsewhere.

Public attorney: Works for the government. Requires a license to practice. When dismissed retains license and can seek work elsewhere.

So should public attorneys (those that work for the government) be given the same form of tenure as teachers? I don't think anyone supports that notion. Why not?

Let's see how they weasel out of that one.

[Real Live WI Teacher]

Nice try Rush. But all the verbage doesn't cover up your intent to hamstring unions so your bosses can continue to turn the Land of the Free into the Land of the Corporate Boss. With total control all 3 branches of gov. and ownership of the press, the victim pose only sells to your target audience.

Anything else to say other than "poser?"

No?

Didn't try "meanie" this time. I'm disappointed. But then all that's left are retreads.

You did try to expand the empty rhetoric to include some quasi-finger-pointing, but it's hard to talk out of both sides of your mouth -- trying to skewer and villanize yet in the same breath saying to stop being victimized, lol.

But your grammar was decent and your word choice proficient to advanced. I enjoyed communication that was higher than 'minimal' from your peer group.

[Tom Tuttle]

Is this how teaching is? How quickly should a "bad" teacher be fired? Is tenure to blame for my wife's situation? Any suggestions?

First let me say how I wish your wife had not had to go through this. Please try to assure her that this shabby treatment is no reflection upon her as a person or a teacher. This is how teaching is. Adminstrators are often bullies. They rarely take responsbility for anything and will hardly ever back a teacher when unfair accusations start to fly whether from students or parents. They take the easiest path.

Just before I started teaching, I was offered a very lucrative postion as a sales manager. I turned it down when, at the table, the president asked me to give him the dirt about the other candidate, a longtime associate and friend. I refused and he said, "He's already told us all about you,"

I told him, "If that's the kind of person you want, hire the other guy." They did and I moved on, grateful for the experience. The lesson: management must be cold hearted and calculating to do the dirty work for the guy who only is interested in "the bottom line." Your wife probably just got involved in a personel situation where it was easier to let her go then deal with the reality.

Is tenure to blame? Well, the only thing that kept me and most of the tenured teachers I know going through the awful period of bullying that every teacher must go through was the thought that someday soon it would all end. Once your wife gets tenure, they won't be able to push her around. They will bully the new teachers instead.

Also, depsite what you read here, getting fired before attaining tenure is not the black mark that getting fired after tenure is, so, if she can face the bullying again, she can go back to work pretty easily. But make sure she understands the rules: she will be kicked around until she earns that precious protection from the unprincipled principal and his cronies.

[Real Live WI Teacher]

Wow, I'm sorry to hear about your wife's experience. It does sound like she isn't in a supportive or encouraging position. Honestly, it seems to me like she had the earmarks of a good teacher, but is in a district that's been watered down and can't take the example or waves she'd create.

If sub-standard is the rule, and everyone else is entrenched and working at that level, one dedicated and "good" teacher causes student confusion and exposes failure educationally, and also causes other teachers / administrators to look for that teachers culpability in the rukus. As opposed to seeking out ways to raise the student and teacher standards.

What you are talking about is what's left in average schools that have succumbed to the tenure / union / socialist mentality. I hope she isn't discouraged and finds a district or school that will fit her philosophy and standards.

[Real Live WI Teacher]

I see you get it.

If someone is working on your house and you don't like his job? Fire him! After all, he can always get another job (hopefully).

Don't like a principal? Fire him! After all, he is rich and powerful so why should anyone protect him? (Not sure how rich and powerful he will be unemployed, but that's his problem.)



Bingo! I wish I had your ability to state it so succintly.

Thank you Lisa! You know I'm in YOUR fan club, tho! It's so refreshing to find truth reflected in another teacher. There's more than a few now where I work too. I think I'm going to start a different thread on the best environments for education, including the issue of unions. The one thing that I felt someone said as criticism that was valid was that the topic or thread had been hi-jacked at some point. It happened because of interest and passion, but a new thread might bring some new ideas and rational discussion, as opposed the tired and refried "neener neener" or "talk to the hand" responses that seem to be left. I felt I was understanding others' perspectives for a while, even if I didn't agree. Hope for more....

[MIldred]

Hope I'm not wading in here too late, but I think Mr. Tuttle has made a pretty clear point and am confused as to why others don't see the simple point. How someone is fired or not fired depends upon the terms of employment. I think that if I were to date a man who only asked for a date and he never called me again, I would have no cause to complain. But if a man asked me to marry him and then dissappeared, I could take him to court. If the teacher you want to fire was, like untenured teachers are, hired on a temporary basis with no justification necessary for release of employement, then that teacher really shouldn't be surprised if she is let go. On the other hand, if a district hires a teacher on a contract which clearly states she can only be fired through due process, then that is what must take place. Now, as Mr. Tuttle points out, if your district can entice teachers to come aboard with no promise of job security, then, good hunting. Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

[Unregistered]

I see Lisa has a new moniker.

[leticiaL.]

Yeah, ha ha, like she's fooling anyone. I still think "Lisa" is not even a teacher, but a pauncy little stooge hired to try to weaken unions from inside posts like this one. Have you ever met a real teacher who wanted to give up protection from the prejudicial principals? Let alone lobbied so hard on every post against teacher job security? I know for a fact that the neo-cons are on one of the last islands of free thought (education) and spending whatever it takes to bring us down like they did the free press (NPR most recently).

[Unregistered]

Hope I'm not wading in here too late, but I think Mr. Tuttle has made a pretty clear point and am confused as to why others don't see the simple point. How someone is fired or not fired depends upon the terms of employment.

No one is disputing that. The question is whether or not tenured terms of employment should even be in existence in the first place.

And if so, why shouldn't we extend the same rights to all public sector jobs, including public defenders and school administrators?

[Unregistered]

Yeah, ha ha, like she's fooling anyone. I still think "Lisa" is not even a teacher...

Once again, the ad hominem attack is a fallacy and unworthy of anyone calling themselves "educated." The real question in my mind is how someone who managed to get a college degree could so blatantly fall back on such faulty argumentation. Do you teach your students to use personal attacks in debate?

But here is a clue for you: Not every teacher is pro-tenure. Not every teacher toes the union line on every issue. I am all for higher pay (I don't get paid enough, in my opinion), but unaccountability is not something I am willing to fight for.

Let's try my questions one more time. The ad hominem attack isn't going to help you answer them.

Public school teacher: Works for the government. Requires a credential in order to work. When dismissed retains credential and can seek work elsewhere.

Public attorney: Works for the government. Requires a license to practice. When dismissed retains license and can seek work elsewhere.

So should public attorneys (those that work for the government) be given the same form of tenure as teachers? I don't think anyone supports that notion. Why not?

Let's see how you weasel out of that one.

[Unregistered]

By the way, I am not Real Live WI Teacher. I find it funny how those that agree with me never try this form of personal attack when responding.

[MIldred]

No one is disputing that. The question is whether or not tenured terms of employment should even be in existence in the first place.

Excuse me for saying so, but that is just plain silly. The fact is those terms do exist, and nothing you or I or anyone can say can change that. Unless you are suggesting that the employers suddenly be given the right to renege on agreements, some of them made decades ago. Is that what you are suggestiing? There's an article on an internet magazine today entitled "Fire Granpa and Hire the Young Guy" because the young employee is cheaper and easier to cheat and manipulate. Is that where you are coming from?

[Unregistered]

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. And fire any woman who gets pregnant or anyone with an illness that causes more than a days loss of work. Let's make the schools as streamlined and economical as the places we shop.

[MIldred]

Well, at least you're being honest about your intentions now. I give you that. But either you are very young and naive or you are a beast with no regard for the dignity of human life.

[Unregistered]

ya teachers get a little pay. But still they also have a very easy job. All we do is teach kids all we know. And get the summer off and weekends. And sometimes days of the week. Were off for all holidays.To.

[Tom Tuttle]

But here is a clue for you: Not every teacher is pro-tenure. Not every teacher toes the union line on every issue. I am all for higher pay (I don't get paid enough, in my opinion), but unaccountability is not something I am willing to fight for. [/i]

So that's what this is all about? Someone has convinced you that you will make more money if you get rid of teacher protections?

Here's the thing about being in a union: you don't get to pick and choose when you support your union brothers and sisters. You either stand as one (thus the word union) or you are an enemy to the cause.

Nobody ever asked you to fight for unaccountability. But you sure are putting up a fight against the union. You know very well that when management has the right to fire any teacher without cause the unions will fall. That is why other teachers attack you. You are an enemy. Others have suggested that you are probably not even a teacher. That is not an attack, ad hominim or otherwise. It is hard for a teacher to comprehend how anyone can stand under the protection of the union and attack its basic principles from within that shelter.

[Unregistered]

Excuse me for saying so, but that is just plain silly. The fact is those terms do exist, and nothing you or I or anyone can say can change that.

It's an Internet forum. If there was something I could really do about it, I would and there would be no point in arguing about it.

"Fire Granpa and Hire the Young Guy" because the young employee is cheaper and easier to cheat and manipulate. Is that where you are coming from?

Nice characterization of younger employees.

[Unregistered]

Well, at least you're being honest about your intentions now.

Good grief! Do you really think I wrote that?

[Unregistered]

So that's what this is all about? Someone has convinced you that you will make more money if you get rid of teacher protections?

I never said that. I said I wanted unions to focus on better pay, not the right to be a lousy teacher with no repercussions. I was very clear.

Here's the thing about being in a union: you don't get to pick and choose when you support your union brothers and sisters. You either stand as one (thus the word union) or you are an enemy to the cause.

A perfect example of "sheep mentality." By the way, this is the same mentality instituted by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot to hammer their populations into total obedience -- those who even questioned Communism were declared enemies of the state.

Sorry, but I reserve the right to disagree with anyone on any issue. And I have the right to voice my disagreement. To think otherwise is un-American.

Nobody ever asked you to fight for unaccountability.

Fighting for tenure IS fighting for unaccountability. If you disagree, tell me what accountability measures the union has put in place to make up for the inabliity of management to weed out incompetent teachers? What accountablity to quality teaching does a tenured teacher possess?

But you sure are putting up a fight against the union. You know very well that when management has the right to fire any teacher without cause the unions will fall. That is why other teachers attack you. You are an enemy. Others have suggested that you are probably not even a teacher. That is not an attack, ad hominim or otherwise.

Obviously you don't understand what an ad hominen attack really is.

The right to tenure should stand on its own merits, not be based on who posts the ideas. And if you cannot understand such a simple concept in logic, then what is the point in arguing with you?

[Real Live WI Teacher]

By the way, I am not Real Live WI Teacher. I find it funny how those that agree with me never try this form of personal attack when responding.

Sorry, had to say thanks for the laugh, I always look forward to checking this forum! My moniker is the truth that others find so hard to believe: a REAL LIVE TEACHER that understands and sees with her own eyes how unaccountability (good term Lisa) through tenure is killing education and the soul our profession.

I know it's hard enough to fathom one teacher confronting you with such a reality, and to try and smoosh her sound positions like bugs on your windshield of delusion... but TWO? Now what!!!! Runnn..... look on your socialist websites quickly for how to respond to this, or wait...

Let me guess...

1. Try different ways of yelling "Poser!"
2. Try to say anything other than tenure / unions is evil, yell "Meanie!"
3. Make a word, a term, a phrase, anything unrelated to the core issue the topic of your response.

Which will it be?

From, "not Lisa" but accept your compliment ;)

[Real Live WI Teacher]

Excuse me for saying so, but that is just plain silly. The fact is those terms do exist, and nothing you or I or anyone can say can change that. Unless you are suggesting that the employers suddenly be given the right to renege on agreements, some of them made decades ago. Is that what you are suggestiing? There's an article on an internet magazine today entitled "Fire Granpa and Hire the Young Guy" because the young employee is cheaper and easier to cheat and manipulate. Is that where you are coming from?


Nothing, NOTHING, you or I can do or say to changed the terms of our employment, or union control? HA!! Think again!

Gee, I missed that article. I've been busy watching the riots in France over the unemployment (26%) caused by TENURED POSITIONS aka socialism. Will get right to that, lol.

No, I'm coming from the position that there should be effective teachers, who are competent, and that employment and compensation should be based on a rationale that is tied to that. I do not support students being sacrificed at the alter of kafka-esque meaningless "due process" with boils down to protection of the worst, ineffective, and even negligent and unsafe teachers.

[Real Live WI Teacher]

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. And fire any woman who gets pregnant or anyone with an illness that causes more than a days loss of work. Let's make the schools as streamlined and economical as the places we shop.

I'm not sure if this is intentionally misleading, or if you truly don't understand labor and law.

No one can fire a woman for getting pregnant. It's against the law, and is discrimination. There are already PROTECTIONS, many of them.

What amazes me is your hypocracy. If it's HORRIBLE, and TERRIBLE, not to have this protection, why do you condone it for everyone else in the country???

Elitist socialism, vehemently defended with patronizing assurance that it's in the name of defending the everyman or workingman.

It's getting painful, isn't it Lisa?

[Real Live WI Teacher]

So that's what this is all about? Someone has convinced you that you will make more money if you get rid of teacher protections?

Here's the thing about being in a union: you don't get to pick and choose when you support your union brothers and sisters. You either stand as one (thus the word union) or you are an enemy to the cause.

Nobody ever asked you to fight for unaccountability. But you sure are putting up a fight against the union. You know very well that when management has the right to fire any teacher without cause the unions will fall. That is why other teachers attack you. You are an enemy. Others have suggested that you are probably not even a teacher. That is not an attack, ad hominim or otherwise. It is hard for a teacher to comprehend how anyone can stand under the protection of the union and attack its basic principles from within that shelter.

Thank you, brother or sister, for helping me to understand that you are an enemy. I'll be sharing this with many who ask about the "union" requirements, cencorship, blackwalling, and extortion. The day ANY part entity demands absolute abdication and censures the voice and participation of the people, I'll be glad to sign on as an "enemy." It's the reality then, that unions are the enemy of a free citizenry, free republic, free workforce, and free speech as you see it.

And it's not hard to comprehend how someone can stand under the protection of a union and attack it's basic principles... because I refuse to stand under that protection, I don't need the protections that are trumped up as 'saving' teachers. And I will certainly make about a thousand more a year in NOT paying union dues, and can make sure that it's not spent in ways that clearly aren't supported by it's members.

I don't see any protections, it's not a mutual or communally benefitial interdependence... it's parasitical, in two ways: the unions from the teachers, and the worst of the teachers from the rest of us.

[Be Just]

lisa defines unity:A perfect example of "sheep mentality." By the way, this is the same mentality instituted by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot to hammer their populations into total obedience -- those who even questioned Communism were declared enemies of the state.

Sorry, but I reserve the right to disagree with anyone on any issue. And I have the right to voice my disagreement. To think otherwise is un-American.


You neatly mix up the idea of disagreement within a democratic system with breaking ranks in a democratic entity formed for the purpose of defending agreed upon principles. As a union member or an officer in the USMC, I have a right and duty to speak my mind during discussions with my fellows. Publicly standing against a postion and lobbying against a plan or program democratically agreed upon is not democracy. It is betrayal.

By the way, what Latin term would you use to describe an argument that equates a quality such as "unity" with famous despots? You tend to cry foul but then make up your own rules.

Furthermore, I hope your description of men and women who stand together for their principles and loyalty as "sheep" ends with teachers and does not include members of the Armed Forces or Law Enforcement.

[MIldred]

It's the reality then, that unions are the enemy of a free citizenry, free republic, free workforce, and free speech as you see it.


Lisa, do you agree with this statement? This person, who I have no desire to dialogue with, is an avowed enemy of worker unions, by her own clearly spelled out definition. Are you also openly dedicated to the destruction of teachers' unions? If so, the discussion on teacher protection becomes moot,wouldn't you say? Of course,now that I think about it, without teacher protection, there wouldn't be a union, would there?

[MIldred]

By the way, what Latin term would you use to describe an argument that equates a quality such as "unity" with famous despots? .

"Ad hominem abusive."

[Alice B.]

I was a high school principal for 8 years and I never had a problem disposing of teachers who refused to improve bad teaching habits. Administrators who contend that due process interferes with the ability to shape staff performance are, in my opinion, either lacking in experience of are themselves incompetent. Just as when dealing with discipline problems in the classroom, documentation, communication, and consistency are required. First of all, we should put some of the responsibitity for bad staffing decisions on the parties who do the hiring. If you have a glut of poorly performing teachers, I would ask how that came to be. A teacher is given notice of poor performance in writing, usually in the form of a written observation. He or she is given opportunities to improve. Harsher warnings are given, again with substantial and tangible proof of poor performance. The teacher is given an opportunity to withdraw (which,when handled correctly generally is the end of it). Then the teacher is dismissed. Of course this takes time and effort, but we are dealing with professionals here. Perhaps if you would be specific as to the personell problems your site is experiencing, I could give you some more concrete ideas on how to deal with them. Lacking those specifics, I can only say, just as a poor workman blames his tools, a weak adminstrator blames the problems of a poorly perfoming staff on issues beyond his or her control, issues like due process, which is clearly not the problem.

[Unregistered]

Sorry, but calling someone an "enemy" is pretty abusive, which is why I referred to Stalin. He used the same term, because he had the same idea of trying to incite hatred by labelling his ideological opponents as dangerous. And that is exactly what is taking place here.

I have an idea: Why not discuss the merits of tenure on its own terms? If tenure is such a good idea, it should stand on its own. Right? But so far all you have offered are:

A. Unsubstantiated prophecies ("We will all work in sweatshops...," "Our jobs will be exported to India..." and so on)

B. Personal attacks ("You're not one of us...," "You are an enemy...," "You are really Lisa posing as someone else...," and so on)

C. Straw man fallacies ("Are you trying to tell us that we should renege on an agreed contract?")


So if you are really interested in defending tenure, why not start by answering some easy questions:

1. Is accountability towards quality teaching necessary?

2. What accountability does a tenured teacher have towards quality teaching?

3. (along the same lines) What has the teachers' unions installed to hold their own members to a reasonable level of professionalism?

4. If a teacher should be granted tenure, why shouldn't a public defender, or any public official for that matter?

Any person that has studied the issue of tenure and, based on their knowledge and not union propaganda, understands its effects should have an easy time answering these questions.

I am certainly willing to answer any questions you pose for me, because I have full confidence in my own stance.

[Unregistered]

Lisa, do you agree with this statement? This person, who I have no desire to dialogue with, is an avowed enemy of worker unions, by her own clearly spelled out definition.

No, I don't agree, but she may be just taking your argument to what she considers the logical extreme. I will let her explain her reasoning.

Are you also openly dedicated to the destruction of teachers' unions?

Absolutely not. I just want the teacher's unions to quit protecting bad teachers at the expense of everyone else. I have a "colleague" who is absolutely worthless as a teacher. His classes are chaotic, his content knowledge isn't very strong, his students' tests scores are low, and he cares not to improve. Rather than focusing on providing good teachers with better pay, our union has rallied to his defense on two occassions. The guy has no impetus to improve, because he will draw a paycheck regardless.

And who gets hurt in this process? His students, obviously. But he also hurts our profession. Of what good does his presence on campus do me, or anyone else?

Another thing that sticks in my craw is the union's constant battle to prevent others from seeing the inside of these classrooms. We need to know what is taking place so that we can identify problems. As it stands the Principal and I can walk into a teacher's classroom once every month, but we had to fight like **** to get even that. They wanted NO OBSERVATIONS (but luckily didn't quite get what they wanted.) Why should any union fight for "the lack of oversight?"

[Unregistered]

I was a high school principal for 8 years and I never had a problem disposing of teachers who refused to improve bad teaching habits. Administrators who contend that due process interferes with the ability to shape staff performance are, in my opinion, either lacking in experience of are themselves incompetent.

I wouldn't disagree, but keep in mind that your reasoning doesn't really solve the problem. The fact that some unions decide to put up ugly fights over every dismissal is an issue that some of us have to overcome. If every situation was like yours, I wouldn't be arguing against tenure (but then again, tenure wouldn't have the same connotation as it does currently).

Just as when dealing with discipline problems in the classroom, documentation, communication, and consistency are required. First of all, we should put some of the responsibitity for bad staffing decisions on the parties who do the hiring. If you have a glut of poorly performing teachers, I would ask how that came to be. A teacher is given notice of poor performance in writing, usually in the form of a written observation. He or she is given opportunities to improve. Harsher warnings are given, again with substantial and tangible proof of poor performance.

In our district, the unions tried to fight for NO OBSERVATIONS. If the union had gotten its way, how would you provide proof of poor performance?

Lacking those specifics, I can only say, just as a poor workman blames his tools, a weak adminstrator blames the problems of a poorly perfoming staff on issues beyond his or her control, issues like due process, which is clearly not the problem.

It isn't a problem AT YOUR SITE. But the ability to dismiss teachers depends largely on the relationship the union has with the administration, and a lot can factor into that relationship.

I blame:

1. The poorly perfoming teachers.
2. Weak administrators.
3. Those that defend poorly performing teachers.
4. The very practice of giving teachers the right to be lousy.

Dealing with poorly performing teachers is like dealing with misbehaving kids. Like the kids have parents, the teachers have their own defenders -- the union. At some point the behavior of the parents can be so outrageous that administrators throw up their hands and send the kids back into the classroom. In their eyes, it just isn't worth the struggle. In the same sense, unions can often put up such nasty defenses of teachers that administrators find it easier to just keep them around until they retire. Whom is to blame in this situation? The administrators or union officials? Both, in my opinion.

And who gets hurt? In the case of misbehaving kids, the teachers. In the case of poorly performing teachers, the kids.

The solution is for the unions to police their own by demanding standards of quality and to encourage administrators to dismiss teachers who fail to live up to those standards. However, those the unions deem as quality teachers should be defended if they are offered for dismissal.

So is tenure the problem, or are unions the problem?

[Unregistered]

Publicly standing against a postion and lobbying against a plan or program democratically agreed upon is not democracy. It is betrayal.

So those in Congress who voted against a passed measure must state publically that they support it?

Public disagreement is the very core of our democratic system. When members of an organization are kow-towed into silence, abuses appear. And any organization that forces its members to misrepresent their own personal views is standing on very unstable ideological ground.

The military is not a democratic system, so it has no relevance to this discussion.

By the way, what Latin term would you use to describe an argument that equates a quality such as "unity" with famous despots?

I didn't equate unity with famous despots -- I equated the practice of labeling those who disagree as "enemies" with famous despots. And I can quote passages from Pol Pot and Stalin to back my statement.

Keep in mind that I did not attack the people who offered these arguments, but the arguments themselves. Read the following:

A perfect example of "sheep mentality." By the way, this is the same mentality instituted by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot to hammer their populations into total obedience -- those who even questioned Communism were declared enemies of the state.

Sorry, but I reserve the right to disagree with anyone on any issue. And I have the right to voice my disagreement. To think otherwise is un-American.

I attacked the ideas, not the people who offered them.

Furthermore, I hope your description of men and women who stand together for their principles and loyalty as "sheep" ends with teachers and does not include members of the Armed Forces or Law Enforcement.

You are equating a union with an armed militia? Again, the military is not a democracy (nor should it be). The military can hold its own trials and throw its own members into jail; unions cannot. The military can send its own members on life-threatening missions; unions cannot. Obviously the two entities are quite dissimilar. But if you want to equate a union to a militia, then by all means do so.

[Tom Tuttle]

Okay, that's reasonable. But before I go through your list, I need to know one thing. Is this reform you are suggesting going to work from present hires onward? Or are you suggesting we change the terms of employment that teachers were hired under?

[Tom Tuttle]

The above was a response to post #319.

[MIldred]

This discussion is becoming more level-headed and it almost appears as if some middle ground might be reached. The 8 yr.principal made some very reasonable points, and the response from unreg. was also quite well thought out. Apparantly we can agree that the situation varies widely according to the site. Unions in some areas appear to be more reasonable than others. My union regularly sponsors opportunities for teachers to improve, for example, and I don't know of a single case where they have backed an inept teacher who was fired. Apparantly, the responder to the principal agrees that management shares the burden or responsibility for the situation in her school site, which sounds extremely disagreeable. In my experience, the polarization between union and management that you describe usually comes with a long history of stupidity and abuse on both sides. Getting rid of teacher protection because of these unfortunate "wars" still seems to me a bit like throwing out the baby with the washwater. I recognize that you are feeling the ill effects of an abused system, but surely you realize that there are many teachers and sites that have had the opposite experience, where the worst sorts of abuse have been practiced against teachers by management. I agree that unions could do more to build better teaching practices, but how would you propose that good teachers be protected against unfair firing and harrassment if the existing teacher protections are removed?

[Unregistered]

Getting rid of teacher protection because of these unfortunate "wars" still seems to me a bit like throwing out the baby with the washwater.

Except that other professions manage to perform without the need for such unreasonable protections. In my opinion, tenure gives teachers a bad rap from the public and is often used to protect bad teachers, which only furthers the bad rep. As a quality teacher, tenure does nothing for me. I am not willing to fight for anything that I would not be willing to grant someone else, and that is my real problem with the pro-tenure crowd.

If tenure is such a necessity, then tell me why we are not endorsing that all public officials be given the same protection? What about the principal? Would you be in favor of granting him the same protection that demand for yourself? What about the public defender?

How would you feel if you were jailed because a public defender did a poor job in the court room? What if you found out that he had a bad reputation as a public defender, but was allowed to remain on the job because his union fought his dismissal? Would your opinion of the union's role in labor relations change?

Now, consider what happens to kids who don't learn the necessary content because of a poorly performing teacher. They are every bit the victim of tenure as the unfairly jailed convict's.

The truth is that, besides the ad hoc excuses, we don't want principals to be granted tenure because we don't want to be placed in a situation where we have to deal with an incompetent administrator who feels he can do anything he wishes. (I certainly don't want to work for a tenured principal.) In this sense, we would consider ourselves victims of the laziness and insincerity that the lack of oversight produces.

Now, who are the victims when it comes to teacher tenure? The kids. But they don't have any political power, so their voices are not heard. A teacher can ruin the futures of school children year after year with impunity because the kids have no say in the matter. Parents do, but they are limited in their ability to monitor teaching effectiveness.

If tenure was a good idea, I would be the first in line voicing my opinion that my principal, public defender, police officer, and fireman be given the same protections. But I don't want that type of protection for them because I want them to know that they must always do a quality job to keep their posts. And since I am not willing to grant them tenure, what right do I have to demand it for myself? Are you willing to answer the same question?

[Unregistered]

Is this reform you are suggesting going to work from present hires onward? Or are you suggesting we change the terms of employment that teachers were hired under?

I am not sure what the courts have said in the past about the legality of tenure, for it may be that life-time contracts are unenforcable. I'm not a lawyer, so I cannot say.

[MIldred]

I'm not an attorney either, but I have been a negotiater for quite a few years and I can tell you that there is no law concerning tenure in public schools. It is a contractual agreement. I think this is an important point for you to contemplate. The basis of contractual law is that neither party can break binding agreement without serious, very serious liability. Therefore, any arguments about changing existing teacher protections would have to center upon incoming teachers. I can't remember who here said it, but the logic was flawless: neither your nor I can do anything about removing teacher protections that were agreed upon as the terms of past employment. Removing current teacher benefits from future hires would be on a district by district basis, as are such matters as salary, class size, and health benefits. Evidently, the only thing keeping tenure alive is the perception that you'd have a tough time getting people to work for you without offering it. As somebody said here, if you find teachers who'll work without tenure, more power to you. Would your union put up a fight about it? Probably, but if, as you (I think it was you) suggested earlier, the lure of better pay could and probably would change their tack. For example, within 50 miles of my home there are districts with class size of 18 to 48. Districts negotiate class size with unions who often take more students because that means fewer new teachers which means a higher negotiated teacher pay. Simple answer: just about everything is contractual and negotiated. I think you'd have a good shot at giving the boot to tenure in your district if you became active in negotiation, but you'd have to be appointed Supreme Dictator of the United States to set aside previously agreed upon contracts.

[Unregistered]

The basis of contractual law is that neither party can break binding agreement without serious, very serious liability.

An issue to consider is voluntary slavery. If a person agrees to work for another for a lifetime, can the person quit at some later time without facing civil damages? I am not certain how the courts have reacted in such a situation. The courts may decide that a lifetime contract amounts to servitude. If so (and I really have no idea), then the same would hold true for the district's obligation of providing lifetime employment.

Furthermore, the contractual agreement exists between the district and the individual. If the state decides that tenure will no longer be supported, then the district can terminate tenure without (possibly) facing any civil repercurssions. (And this is already done when states restructure schools as part of the School Improvement program.)

I am not saying this is what should take place, only that the basis for tenure is (possibly) not as solid as you think. Any contractual agreement that relies on state law can probably be terminated at any time with a simple change in the law. In such a situation, the teacher probably has no legal recourse.

I realize I use a lot of weasel words, such as "probably" and "possibly." But I'm no lawyer.

[Unregistered]

Evidently, the only thing keeping tenure alive is the perception that you'd have a tough time getting people to work for you without offering it.

I have never bought this argument. The police are not tenured, but we always manage to find police officers. In fact, every job on the planet (other than teaching and Supreme Court judging) features the ability to lose one's job for failed performance, yet they always manage to find employees to do the work.

And what kind of person are you going to attract if the only reason they will sign on is if you agree never to fire them? Ask anyone who hires in the private sector if they would ever agree to such a rule and, if they did, what kind of employee they would attract.

[Be Just]

It looks like we are all coming to a point where we have talked this one out. It was a great discussion; got a little hot and then settled into a more civilized mode where most were listening and actually thinking through the oppossing views. I do appreciate the principal's contribution which opened up some other avenues to explore in dealing with the uncomfortable situation Lisa's school is in, since it looks like tenure, like the court system, protects the guilty while protecting the innocent.
I'd still like to hear what Lisa reccomends in the way of teacher protection to take the place of current laws. While it is unfortunate that slackers occassionaly take advantage, most of the abuses I've seen have been against good teachers who don't have protection. As bad as things seem to you, a world where teachers were treated like the untenured would not be one I'd want to teach in.
As I've related before,I've had 6 principals and 7 superintendents in the last 9 years. They almost always don't like me until their backs are against the wall and they notice I'm one of the few trying to make peace instead of hanging someone. Through all the ups and downs, though I've never had a bad evaluation and always been a top performer, I'd have been fired many times for personal reasons without teacher protection. Our district is torn by racial tension and selfish intrests at the top and teachers maintain sanity and a decent education for the students only because we haven't been victimized by the whims of the egomaniacs who pass through here thinking they're going to reform us all before they fall on their faces.
Long story, but my experience is the opposite of yours Lisa. So,while I sympathize with your problem, I can't agree with your idea to disassemble existing protections until I hear a viable alternative. Teachers need protection because politicians run school boards. Now maybe if the teachers and the parents ran the school...

[Unregistered]

I'd still like to hear what Lisa reccomends in the way of teacher protection to take the place of current laws.

We can start with the same protections afforded everyone else in the public sector. Do you really think teachers are the only public servants that have tough bosses? That have to deal with political rivalries? That have been unfairly fired?

The average public defender is much, much more vulnerable to political pressure than school teachers. So are superintendents and principals. Yet none of the arguments we apply for ourselves is ever used to support tenure for them.

While it is unfortunate that slackers occassionaly take advantage, most of the abuses I've seen have been against good teachers who don't have protection.

I think the situation is far worse than merely "unfortunate" for those kids who have to endure poor teaching and, as a result, have potential careers diminished. If our job is as important as we make it out to be, then we have to acknowledge the serious consequences that occur when we fail to perform.

As I've related before,I've had 6 principals and 7 superintendents in the last 9 years.

Some of these principals and superintendents were likely dismissed. Are you willing to grant administrators the same protections you demand for yourself? If not, why not?

Teachers need protection because politicians run school boards. Now maybe if the teachers and the parents ran the school...

The notion that teachers are fired for political reasons is overblown. Most elected politicians have little contact with the average public school teacher. It is quite easy for a school teacher to engage in their professional obligations without ever coming into conflict with community leaders; I have avoided this problem myself and it wasn't even hard.

But politicians on school boards interact with superintendents and principals all the time. In fact, the turnover rate for principals is incredible. Yet we do not provide these public servants hardly any form of protection at all. And why is that?

[Unregistered]

... great discussion ...settled into a more civilized mode where most were listening and actually thinking through the opposing views.
Ha ha. He don't know lisa

[MIldred]

"Section 3020-a of the Education Law, as amended by Chapter 691 of the Laws of 1994, provides that a tenured school district employee who has been charged with incompetence or misconduct may elect to have a hearing officer review the charges and make findings of fact and recommendations as to penalty or punishment, if warranted. The board of education must implement these recommendations within fifteen days. In cases that involve charges of pedagogical misconduct or issues of pedagogical judgment, the employee may elect to have a three member panel perform this function. This section of the Education Law also requires the school district clerk or the secretary of the board of education to perform certain procedural steps to implement its provisions." (New York State)
Any teacher can be fired, though not without just cause. Those who campaign against tenure simply want to make it possible to remove teachers without having to give a reason.

[Unregistered]

Nothing in the section of the education code you posted mentions anything about dismissal, or even the possiblity of dismissal. Read it again.

On the one hand, teachers try to cast tenure as this very reasonable protection. In this view, incompetent teachers are easy to dismiss as long as a reasonable set of protocols are followed.

On the other hand, they don't want principals and superintendents given the same protection because bad administrators would be hard to dismiss and would use their entrenchment to bully their "subjects."

So is it reasonably easy to dismiss the incompetent with tenure, or not? You can't have it both ways.

Again, if tenure is nothing more than a right to due process, then are you willing to grant the same "reasonable" protection to principals and superintendents? Why do you keep ignoring such a simple question?

[Be Just]

Grant teacher protection to administrators? Whatever for? The purpose of due process for teachers is to protect our profession from political idealogues who would stack the deck in order to create a monolithic system of education devoted not to the pursuit of free intellect but to some narrower definition. The concept is born out of the need to make the classroom a place for the open exchange of ideas, not for any one religiion or political point of view. Teacher protection laws were not created to protect incompetent teachers. Existing laws allow for dealing with incompetence.
You seem to have the idea that tenure exists as some sort of gift to teachers that allows them to do whatever they want without consequences. That is ludicrous! If that situation exists at your school site, it is your administrators who are incompetent.
Lazy or timid administrators complain about teacher protection because they don't want to do the work needed to make the case effectively. From the administrative point of view teacher protection is inconvenient and unwieldy, just as jury trials are for prosecuters. Democracy is sure inconvenient for those who prefer despotism.

[Unregistered]

Grant teacher protection to administrators? Whatever for? The purpose of due process for teachers is to protect our profession from political idealogues who would stack the deck in order to create a monolithic system of education devoted not to the pursuit of free intellect but to some narrower definition.

Principals and superintendents are not only key players in whatever curriculum is taught at a school, but if anything they are far more vulnerable to the political winds than the average teacher.

The concept is born out of the need to make the classroom a place for the open exchange of ideas, not for any one religiion or political point of view.

A Kindergarten teacher needs her job protected because the ideas she expresses to her students might not be politically acceptable to the public?

C'mon, you are describing a university, where ADULTS take classes from professors who might possibly engage in controversial RESEARCH. In that situation, tenure is understandable because research must incorporate the study of controversial issues with possibly controversial results. The average public school teacher has never published anything of a controversial nature.

And we already have a Constitution that protects students from government-mandated religion. We don't need teacher protection for that. If anything, tenure is just as likely to protect a teacher who tries to preach to his students a particular religious viewpoint.

And if these ideals of free speech are so important, why aren't they given to all teachers, not just seventh-year veterans?

Teacher protection laws were not created to protect incompetent teachers.

Obviously. But they do.

Existing laws allow for dealing with incompetence.
You seem to have the idea that tenure exists as some sort of gift to teachers that allows them to do whatever they want without consequences. That is ludicrous! If that situation exists at your school site, it is your administrators who are incompetent.

We have already been over this. I explained very clearly that the political situation at every district differs. Besides, why should the union even fight for a teacher whose incompetence has been demonstrated? That has happened in our district many times, so why blame the administration when it is the union that is defending mediocrity? Sure, the administration maybe could have put up a bigger fight, but why should they have to fight in the first place?

Lazy or timid administrators complain about teacher protection because they don't want to do the work needed to make the case effectively.

If they had the type of protection teachers had, they would probably have more courage to go after rotten teachers. But you want to deny them that protection and make them stick their neck out to improve classroom instruction.

From the administrative point of view teacher protection is inconvenient and unwieldy, just as jury trials are for prosecuters. Democracy is sure inconvenient for those who prefer despotism.

For some reason, the need for democracy only seems to apply to teachers. Why not public defenders? Principals? Administrators? You describe lofty principles, but only want to apply them to yourself. And that is what I have against the pro-tenure crowd.

[Be Just]

Principals and superintendents are not only key players in whatever curriculum is taught at a school, but if anything they are far more vulnerable to the political winds than the average teacher.

In your opinion, they are key players, in mine they are largely superfluous and expensive. Regardless, the classroom is where the rubber meets the road and where unwarranted personell changes would have immediate negative effects. Tenure evolved in an atmosphere of discrimination against teachers. But of immensely more importance is the simple fact that principals are not labor and do not have a union. They are managment: they got their jobs to do the will of their bosses. Teachers are suppossed to follow the standards set by the profession and their own conscience and therefore need protection, both as labor and as people who deciminate ideas.

[Be Just]

[QUOTE=Unregistered]
C'mon, you are describing a university, where ADULTS take classes from professors who might possibly engage in controversial RESEARCH. In that situation, tenure is understandable because research must incorporate the study of controversial issues with possibly controversial results. The average public school teacher has never published anything of a controversial nature.

This idea of "publishing" being the reason for tenure is, at best, a partial truth. And I can accept the fact that you, as a math teacher, don't have much occasion to discuss controversial topics in your class, but those of us who teach, reading, writing, history, speech, journalism, etc, well, we have far more occasion to engage in controversy. Controversy engages students and inspires them to think and question. I have always been controversial and therefore appreciate the protection I recieve under the law.

[Unregistered]

..why should the union even fight for a teacher whose incompetence has been demonstrated? That has happened in our district many times, so why blame the administration when it is the union that is defending mediocrity? Sure, the administration maybe could have put up a bigger fight, but why should they have to fight in the first place?

These questions remind me of the people who question the results of a jury trial from what they read in the newspaper. What you really want to know is why the people who decide these issues don't agree with your critical assessment of another professional. I can only assume that the people whose job it is to treat these matters fairly made a fair call. Or they are incompetent, in which case, you should go after them.

[Be Just]

For some reason, the need for democracy only seems to apply to teachers. Why not public defenders? Principals? Administrators? You describe lofty principles, but only want to apply them to yourself. And that is what I have against the pro-tenure crowd.

Why don't they either join our union or form one of their own? In the meantime, why should our union fight for them? They are hardly ever on our side.

[Unregistered]

Why do we have to be payed so little? Come on I've been teaching for 7 years, and still get a bum salary, we have needs.


Probably because you spelled "paid" wrong

[Unregistered]

Probably because you spelled "paid" wrong
Is there anything less classy then spell checking online posts for others? First, some are writing in on handhelds. Second, we're not submitting college essays. Third, it shows a total lack of comprehending basic Netiquette. Finally, it is rude and boorish.

[MIldred]

Nicely put, Be Good. I've often marveled at the gulf looming 'tween management and teacher and never really saw why. What a different world if principals were on our side of that gulf, i.e. labor.

[MIldred]

oops, i meant Be Just. wouldn't want the spell cop to nab me.

[Real Live WI Teacher]

Lisa, do you agree with this statement? This person, who I have no desire to dialogue with, is an avowed enemy of worker unions, by her own clearly spelled out definition. Are you also openly dedicated to the destruction of teachers' unions? If so, the discussion on teacher protection becomes moot,wouldn't you say? Of course,now that I think about it, without teacher protection, there wouldn't be a union, would there?

You had to ignore the entire message of the post that was clearly being stated to deliberately take it out of context.

Reread the prior post, and then mine. Ask yourself honestly, did you REALLY not understand that I was restating and opposing their assertion that had just been posted by someone defending the union stance of total obedience or you are the enemy?

And you really admit you wouldn't converse or be open minded with someone if they had different views from yours? That is such entrenched thinking, so rigid and narrow. I would love to hear an articulate and provoking position that addressed tenure. I welcome a conversation that would outline ways that unions could progress and become useful and relevant in ways they were originally intended. I do not believe it's black and white, I do not advocate for annihilating unions, nor do I believe that they are functioning well today.

Think of the censure being advocated by those who wear the coat of tolerance and open-mindedness, the infringement on worker rights and civil rights if you accept that it's betrayal to state your opinion, use blackballing, intimidating, bullying, and extortion to maintain one belief system that requires involuntary total obedience and subjugation.

I don't think you were able to read past my first question; that your defensive or protective behaviors twisted, argued, or distorted any truth or belief of mine that I present, without regard for reasoning or rationale.

The rub is that you feign honesty about your closed-mindedness and coping strategy to ignore and not engage in debate or converstation with me (i.e., anyone not pro-union), but then proceed to prove yourself the opposite by using my words to do exactly that. Just because you are unable to, or "choose not to" directly discuss this with me doesn't mean that other-directed responses that include my dialogue, respond to it, or use it to engage others is suddenly qualified as such. More of the same reasoning and arrogance: if I SAY it is so, then it is; if I define it as such, then that makes it true.

I would ask in fairness that you not read my posts, not distort them or respond to them, and not make weak attempts to challenge others by recharacterizing and then redefining my posts if you are withdrawing from having "any dialogue" about them. If you read this far, this would start NOW.

[Real Live WI Teacher]

It looks like we are all coming to a point where we have talked this one out. It was a great discussion; got a little hot and then settled into a more civilized mode where most were listening and actually thinking through the oppossing views. I do appreciate the principal's contribution which opened up some other avenues to explore in dealing with the uncomfortable situation Lisa's school is in, since it looks like tenure, like the court system, protects the guilty while protecting the innocent.
I'd still like to hear what Lisa reccomends in the way of teacher protection to take the place of current laws. While it is unfortunate that slackers occassionaly take advantage, most of the abuses I've seen have been against good teachers who don't have protection. As bad as things seem to you, a world where teachers were treated like the untenured would not be one I'd want to teach in.
As I've related before,I've had 6 principals and 7 superintendents in the last 9 years. They almost always don't like me until their backs are against the wall and they notice I'm one of the few trying to make peace instead of hanging someone. Through all the ups and downs, though I've never had a bad evaluation and always been a top performer, I'd have been fired many times for personal reasons without teacher protection. Our district is torn by racial tension and selfish intrests at the top and teachers maintain sanity and a decent education for the students only because we haven't been victimized by the whims of the egomaniacs who pass through here thinking they're going to reform us all before they fall on their faces.
Long story, but my experience is the opposite of yours Lisa. So,while I sympathize with your problem, I can't agree with your idea to disassemble existing protections until I hear a viable alternative. Teachers need protection because politicians run school boards. Now maybe if the teachers and the parents ran the school...

This is the best post I think I've read from a pro-tenure position. Others have made periphal points that have still felt like arguments, but this has an honestly that I think will point things in a positive direction. Thanks for your willingness to share it, and join in a discussion :o

[Real Live WI Teacher]

I was a high school principal for 8 years and I never had a problem disposing of teachers who refused to improve bad teaching habits. Administrators who contend that due process interferes with the ability to shape staff performance are, in my opinion, either lacking in experience of are themselves incompetent. Just as when dealing with discipline problems in the classroom, documentation, communication, and consistency are required. First of all, we should put some of the responsibitity for bad staffing decisions on the parties who do the hiring. If you have a glut of poorly performing teachers, I would ask how that came to be. A teacher is given notice of poor performance in writing, usually in the form of a written observation. He or she is given opportunities to improve. Harsher warnings are given, again with substantial and tangible proof of poor performance. The teacher is given an opportunity to withdraw (which,when handled correctly generally is the end of it). Then the teacher is dismissed. Of course this takes time and effort, but we are dealing with professionals here. Perhaps if you would be specific as to the personell problems your site is experiencing, I could give you some more concrete ideas on how to deal with them. Lacking those specifics, I can only say, just as a poor workman blames his tools, a weak adminstrator blames the problems of a poorly perfoming staff on issues beyond his or her control, issues like due process, which is clearly not the problem.

Again, I find it very powerful when specific experiences like this are shared: thanks! Since there seems to be consideration happening here, I'll take some time and try to articulate and support my position. Hold on, it'll be long!

I'm wondering if your district was part of union that had tenure? I think it's an important distinction to make. According to the most current info I can find, your experience isn't typical:

It seems virtually impossible (and extremely expensive) to fire poor teachers, especially after they serve two to three probationary years and become tenured.
1. In 2002, the Los Angeles Board of Education encountered fierce resistance when it tried to remove about 400 of the 35,000 teachers in a chronically low-achieving district. "In the end, the board was able to remove only three, and two of the three removals were overturned on appeal."
2. New York City’s 72,000 teachers, three had dismissal sought over a two-year period.
3. In a survey, more than 80 percent of superintendents and principals reported that the local union fights to “protect teachers who really should be out of the classroom.”
4. Nationally, public school districts report dismissing about one teacher a year for low performance.

The notion of “tenure” originated in higher education, where it was intended mainly to protect scholars who pursued unpopular lines of research. Tenure has less obvious relevance k-12 where teachers provide instruction rather than create new knowledge.

Higher education itself has spent the past 30 years struggling to reduce the percentage of tenured faculty.
1. The percentage of full-time professors with tenure or on the “tenure track” fell by more than 30 percent from 1975 to 1995, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, while the percentage working on short-term contracts increased by 50 percent during that period.
2. From 1970 to 1998, part-time faculty grew from 22 percent to 42 percent of all instructors nationwide. Colleges and universities have taken these steps due to concerns about staffing inflexibility, lost efficiencies, and employee motivation.

Teachers themselves recognize how hard it is to purge their ineffective peers, with 36 percent reporting that “between tenure and the documentation requirements, it’s too hard for administrators to remove any but the very worst teachers” and just 14 percent reporting that inability to remove bad teachers is not a problem.

Seventy-eight percent of teachers report that there are at least a few teachers in their school who “fail to do a good job and are simply going through the motions,” while 58 percent say that tenure doesn’t necessarily mean that teachers have worked hard or proven their ability.

Accountability provides new safeguards for flexible firing. 78 percent of superintendents evaluate principals on their ability to judge and improve teacher quality, the case that teachers need to be insulated from cavalier management is an increasingly difficult one to make.

Across America, employment is normally “at will,” with workers free to quit any time and employers equally free to fire workers. Having some method, such as 5-year renewable "tenure" contract, or a clear process that can actually be utilized to only retain the effective teachers in a reasonable and timely way, or some way of tying effectiveness and job performance with maintaining employment is needed to address the number ONE concern that everyone polled cites as the biggest problem in education today- the need for effective and competent teachers.

THEN the other areas that collective bargaining should serve will be well-supported and more effective also, such as the pay, benefits, and actual due process procedures that would serve the purpose of education: promoting success for students by supporting effective teachers.

I'd be happy to suppy the sources for this info, and the primary website with links can be found at the "Policy Review" website, a publication from Stanford University. One great article that I relied heavily on to quickly post this is "Teacher Quality, Teacher Pay by Frederick M. Hess - Policy Review, No. 124."

[Be Just]

Thank you, Real Live WI for a well thought out and precise summary. I believe you have a real gift for influencing others and we could all learn from the methodical and dispassionate approach you have taken here.

Perhaps if we had begun this discussion by asking for remedies to ineffective teaching, we might have avoided some of the rhetoric which clouds so much discussion these days. I think starting the conversation with "lets get rid of teacher protection" is asking for trouble.

Just because I react strongly and defensively to emotional cries for destroying tenure does not mean I am against effective teaching or improving our profession's record for outstanding participants. I would,in fact, be open to ideas about how to ease the process for weeding out the teachers who have been proven ineffective and incorrigible. I believe our profession is working toward greater accountability. We are a long way from achieving it. Until we come up with more precise yardsticks of measuring teacher effectiveness, we need to be very, very wary of the quick fixes proposed by those with hidden agendas.

If you, or anyone else, can point to a process that guarantees teacher protection for sincere, hard-working professionals who are willing to adapt and learn, while going after the misbehaving, I'd be more than open to that plan.

In particular, the untenured teachers need fairness brought into the process. As a profession, we should all work toward an equitable and fair process for protecting all concerned.

Thanks again, for helping bring some balance to this discussion.

[Unregistered]

Perhaps if we had begun this discussion by asking for remedies to ineffective teaching, we might have avoided some of the rhetoric which clouds so much discussion these days. I think starting the conversation with "lets get rid of teacher protection" is asking for trouble.

The question is whether or not tenure is beneficial. There are many who support it, many that don't. Those that don't support tenure are obviously going to base the premise of their argument on disbanding it. To them, ridding the teaching profession of tenure IS a remedy for ineffective teaching, so how can you accuse them of not trying to offer such a remedy?

Just because I react strongly and defensively to emotional cries...

The personal attacks and emotional appeal have come from the pro-tenure ranks. That is clear to anyone that reads the posts submitted into this thread. The anti-tenure crowd has refrained from personal attacks and has done its best to discuss tenure on its own merits. The pro-tenure crowd has treated tenure as a sacred cow, and denigrated anyone that speaks out against it. That is very much an emotional appeal and not based on reason.

... for destroying tenure does not mean I am against effective teaching or improving our profession's record for outstanding participants. I would,in fact, be open to ideas about how to ease the process for weeding out the teachers who have been proven ineffective and incorrigible.

Does that openness include the idea of getting rid of tenure?

If not, then tenure is very much a sacred cow in your view.

I believe our profession is working toward greater accountability.

Based on what???

What precisely have teachers done to make their own more ACCOUNTABLE for poor performance?

We are a long way from achieving it. Until we come up with more precise yardsticks of measuring teacher effectiveness, we need to be very, very wary of the quick fixes proposed by those with hidden agendas.

Again, you rely on the "hidden agendas" emotional appeal. Instead of offering reasons for keeping tenure, you again attack those that oppose it by claiming they are subversives, out to hurt teachers any way they can.

[Real Live WI Teacher]

I'm not an attorney either, but I have been a negotiater for quite a few years and I can tell you that there is no law concerning tenure in public schools. It is a contractual agreement. I think this is an important point for you to contemplate. The basis of contractual law is that neither party can break binding agreement without serious, very serious liability. Therefore, any arguments about changing existing teacher protections would have to center upon incoming teachers. I can't remember who here said it, but the logic was flawless: neither your nor I can do anything about removing teacher protections that were agreed upon as the terms of past employment. Removing current teacher benefits from future hires would be on a district by district basis, as are such matters as salary, class size, and health benefits. Evidently, the only thing keeping tenure alive is the perception that you'd have a tough time getting people to work for you without offering it. As somebody said here, if you find teachers who'll work without tenure, more power to you. Would your union put up a fight about it? Probably, but if, as you (I think it was you) suggested earlier, the lure of better pay could and probably would change their tack. For example, within 50 miles of my home there are districts with class size of 18 to 48. Districts negotiate class size with unions who often take more students because that means fewer new teachers which means a higher negotiated teacher pay. Simple answer: just about everything is contractual and negotiated. I think you'd have a good shot at giving the boot to tenure in your district if you became active in negotiation, but you'd have to be appointed Supreme Dictator of the United States to set aside previously agreed upon contracts.

Appreciate the clarification, and it brought up another question for me (that is if you are reading my posts)... Can individual teachers actually enter into their own contract/ negotiations with the district? I believe it's different by state possibly, but haven't looked into it. Doesn't it require an "open" union? I believe in WI our union is "closed" meaning you have no choice, and no redress, and it's extremely expensive. The power is too great and the accountability too low. Anyway, if anyone knows about this nuance I'd like to learn more.

If unions were individually voluntary, I wonder how many would leave or remain? I honestly think a majority would stay- initially - but the unions would have to respond to some of the problems that currently can be dismissed.

[tom Tuttle]

To Be Good, Mildred, and others who have tried to talk some sense here: don't bother. Have you ever tried to engage the religious people with the tract in hand to come to your door on Sunday mornings? Don't bother. For the same reason.

These folks spend all their spare time practicing in their church basements. Like door to door salesmen, they are coached in their arguements and know exactly what you might say and how to respond. To try and have an honest intellectual discussion with folks who appear to have an open mind but are simply trying to win converts is an exercise in futility.

These folks who come to teacher web sites with the express purpose of weakening teacher unions have no interest in discussion except as it serves their needs. They are still angry over the defeat of their more obvious issues like school vouchers and teaching intelligent design instead of science.

If only they would just come out and say what they want we could more easily recognize them for what they are. And that isn't much different than the Mullahs who will do anything for theocracy. Attacks on tenure are intended to weaken teacher unions because they are being taught in those basements that teachers are the enemies because we stand for free intellect, their enemy. They want tenure so they can carry out a pogrom and stack public schools with religious automatons instead of real thinkers.

[Unregistered]

These folks spend all their spare time practicing in their church basements.

Be Just, does this look like rational argumentation to you?

[Unregistered]

The notion of “tenure” originated in higher education, where it was intended mainly to protect scholars who pursued unpopular lines of research. Tenure has less obvious relevance k-12 where teachers provide instruction rather than create new knowledge.

Exactly. K-12 teachers recognized a great perk when they saw it being used at the college level.

[Unregistered]

If only they would just come out and say what they want we could more easily recognize them for what they are. And that isn't much different than the Mullahs who will do anything for theocracy. Attacks on tenure are intended to weaken teacher unions because they are being taught in those basements that teachers are the enemies because we stand for free intellect, their enemy. They want tenure so they can carry out a pogrom and stack public schools with religious automatons instead of real thinkers.
All right, fine, Mr. Tuttle, we'll admit that who we are if you'll admit that the teachers unions and all of the seculaar humanists that they represent are the minions of darkness. The Reverand Mr. Falwell trains us and more and more of us are taking over in the classrooms, district offices, and school boards across this great country. You and your teacher union friends will soon have no place left to go when we have gotten this "tenure" business straightened out for good. We're not ashamed of who we are, can you say the same?

[Real Live WI Teacher]

To Be Good, Mildred, and others who have tried to talk some sense here: don't bother. Have you ever tried to engage the religious people with the tract in hand to come to your door on Sunday mornings? Don't bother. For the same reason.

These folks spend all their spare time practicing in their church basements. Like door to door salesmen, they are coached in their arguements and know exactly what you might say and how to respond. To try and have an honest intellectual discussion with folks who appear to have an open mind but are simply trying to win converts is an exercise in futility.

These folks who come to teacher web sites with the express purpose of weakening teacher unions have no interest in discussion except as it serves their needs. They are still angry over the defeat of their more obvious issues like school vouchers and teaching intelligent design instead of science.

If only they would just come out and say what they want we could more easily recognize them for what they are. And that isn't much different than the Mullahs who will do anything for theocracy. Attacks on tenure are intended to weaken teacher unions because they are being taught in those basements that teachers are the enemies because we stand for free intellect, their enemy. They want tenure so they can carry out a pogrom and stack public schools with religious automatons instead of real thinkers.

I appreciate the irony of your lament: that it would be better to have your dark underbelly exposed, to avow your true goal of mindsnatching than to cloak it and engage others who believe they are having an exchange of thoughts and sharing of ideas with worthy opposition.

You just did so, and I see a trainwreck. While pointing one finger at others, three were definitely pointing back at you... .

I believe that any reasonable person who reads what you wrote will recognize your hateful treatment; your desparate caricatures to disguise empty arguments; your pillaging, raping, trashing and burning of the two most widely held belief systems for all people on the earth. You managed to marginalize more than 2,400,000,000 people with just that part of your assault.

Conspirators practicing indoctrination in basements? You're hysterical, someone slap him. And unoriginal, on every point. Try to use your own terms, don't borrow mine and then misapply them without context and integrity. "These folks" is your union-speak euphemism for more direct racist, classist, socio-politcol THEMisms, but is just as caustic.

You are hurting unions by representing them, step aside. You belittle 'Be Just' by association. You embarass those who have a sense of decency, and I only hope the face-burning shame you'll feel when you realize the line you've crossed will be an impetus to amend and atone.

Instead of posturing as someone who seeks fair consideration and dialogue, you reveal your terms for what constitutes that: everyone must accept your garbage going out while you categorically impugn and reject any semblence of contrary opinion so nothing of substance or worth goes IN, or else THEM FOLKS have a closed mind. "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifyng nothing."

Instead of dehumanizing and villifying with such a broad, broad brush, maybe YOU should spend some time listening to those people who knock on your door, and leave that locked basement of your mind that has confused labor elitism with the good forces in some union armageddon, tolerance with bigotry, righteousness with marauding.

Just say you're sorry, that you were having a heated-response moment and made some bad connections. It happens to the best of us; the worst of us defend it.

[Unregistered]

My only question is this....When you went into teaching, you knew (or should have knew) what salary for a teacher was. Why did you go into teaching if you didn't like the salary....Salary shouldn't be a choice in teaching...

What a lame arguement. Salary shouldn't have to be a consideration for any job. But what you seem to be suggesting is that one of the most important jobs in the country (Maybe I am making an assumption but based on parental feedback, and government feedback, I think not) should be done out of the "kindness of the heart." Why do I have to make less than someone in business. I am certainly not less educated... Perhaps you, or someone you know is lucky that a teacher decided to go into teaching despite the salary! Oh, one last thing. Just because I knew the salary doesn't mean I have to be satisfied, or happy with it.

[Unregistered]

Why do I have to make less than someone in business.

The person in business is not tenured; therefore, he is under much more pressure to perform since he is (get this) accountable for his own performance. So maybe he should get paid more in return.

Heh.

[tom Tuttle]

“Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you”

[Real Live WI Teacher]

"neener neener neener"


"It's really not that satisfying having a battle of the wits with an unarmed opponent"
-- who said that??

[MIldred]

Attacks on tenure are intended to weaken teacher unions because they are being taught in those basements that teachers are the enemies because we stand for free intellect, their enemy. They want tenure so they can carry out a pogrom and stack public schools with religious automatons instead of real thinkers.

Oh, tom, you silver tounged rogue. Always trying to flatter your opponents into submission.
Personally, I make it a policy to steer clear of conspiracy theories, but an article in today's paper has given me some food for thought. At the spearpoint of the issue is a book called 'the 100 most dangerous professors in america'. Apparantly, some highly organized and well financed conservative groups are working overtime to go after liberal academics. Their battle cry is "a fair and balanced" approach that would be controlled and managed. This desire to control the content of discussion has reared its head on this forum on more than one occasion when the subject of tenure has been discussed.
While I find tom's approach a bit vitriolic, his fears are not wholly ungrounded. Clearly there is a battle going on about the nature of academic freedom, and tenure stands in the way of those who want more control over content.

[Unregistered]

Personally, I make it a policy to steer clear of conspiracy theories, but an article in today's paper has given me some food for thought. At the spearpoint of the issue is a book called 'the 100 most dangerous professors in america'. Apparantly, some highly organized and well financed conservative groups are working overtime to go after liberal academics.

Strange how it is called a conspiracy if conservatives are involved, but grass roots rallying when liberals are involved.

If a professor wrote an article criticizing labor union policies, liberal interest groups would line up and howl. They would attack the professor as being a paid member of a conservative interest group, or just downright insensitive. Sound familiar?

But that is their right and I would hardly call it a conspiracy.

Look at the vitriole I have garnered in here for daring to further arguments deemed by many to be anti-union. If anything, the personal attacks I have endured is proof of the hypocrisy of acedemic freedom. Those who disagree with me merely want academic freedom for LIBERAL points of view.

Their battle cry is "a fair and balanced" approach that would be controlled and managed.

How are they proposing the content is controlled and managed? What exactly are they saying?

This desire to control the content of discussion has reared its head on this forum on more than one occasion when the subject of tenure has been discussed.

That's right. Insults, questioned motives, slander... these are all means of trying to shout down an opposing argument. And who is doing most of this behavior? Those that want academic freedom.

Respect for a contrary opinion is what academic freedom is all about. Sorry, but you cannot complain about academic freedom on one hand, and then resort to personal insults to attack an idelogical opponent on the other, as tom did.

While I find tom's approach a bit vitriolic, his fears are not wholly ungrounded. Clearly there is a battle going on about the nature of academic freedom, and tenure stands in the way of those who want more control over content.

Again, we are not discussing the college level here. At the college level, tenure is needed to protect those that perform controversial research. College students can walk away from lectures they find contrary to their own view. At the K-12 level, teachers are not performing research. They are not supposed to use their classrooms as pulpits for their own (narrow) views. And unlike college students, K-12 students are a captive audience.

Besides, if anything the typical school campus is a hot bed for political correctness. It is the conservative who must hold his views in check. Frankly, I would like both groups to hold their own personal views in check and just teach the content.

[tom Tuttle]

I'm amazed that someone (nameless) can quote Mildred's thoughtful response to my redneck baiting so extensively, pretending to reply to her thoughts, and then carry on a conversation with themself. I have no idea where this person is coming from or what they are babbling about. I suppose there is some history here, but I've read the entire thread and the best I can figure, the point he, or she is making is that 1. conservatives are being victimized by iiberals and 2. he or she feels insulted (not clear by Mildred,me or someone else) to the point of martyrdom. The one point that emerges with something like clarity is that academic freedom is being threatened by people who don't talk nicely. Hmm. I thought academic freedom had to do with speaking freely whether it hurts feelings or not. Afterall, we're not talking about your party dress here. Are there really people out there who think that the death of freedom will come from people not being polite in discourse? It's okay for people to hide behind religion to legislate against freedom as long as they choose thier words corrrectly? Is this really a site for teachers? Come on people, lets raise the bar a tad.

[Unregistered]

I'm amazed that someone (nameless) can quote Mildred's thoughtful response to my redneck baiting...

So you admit you are doing nothing more than trolling. Okay, so why should we take you seriously?

As for the rest, here's a clue: Political correctnes dominates school campuses. Liberals are not the only ones that feel political heat for stating unpopular decisions. In fact, anyone that wants to shoot their mouth off in class and anger the community is going to feel some political heat. But the difference is that at the college level, stating unpopular opinions is tolerated because the students (who are adults) can walk away from it. At the K-12 level, students (minors) are required to sit in the classroom and listen to a wanna-be professor's drivel. Also, the college professor -- who holds advanced degrees and may have even published relevant research -- might even know what he or she is talking about.

Just shut up and teach is my advice to teachers worred about academic freedom. I do not discuss politics with my students. I leave it up to the parents to decide if their little Jimmy is going to grow up to be conservative, liberal, or plain weird. I can teach everything in the standards without having to worry about academic freedom.

[Unregistered]

that last poster has a real respect problem. some sort of self hatred seems to be coloring his negative opinion of teachers. what makes him think college profs are more qualified to speak than a high school teacher? I have more degrees than my wife who teaches university and I have published more work than most profs. My "drivel" in the world history class I teach is what keeps students motivated and tuned in.

[Unregistered]

Teachers should love teaching first off.
Then teachers need to speak up for what they want.
They usually are never the type to speak up for the increases,
they are afraid they will loose their reputation.

Most teachers are in it for the seniority. The accalades, the affirmation
from the community. They enjoy becoming leaders, and people who are
looked up to.

The problem is the pay is not going to compensate for your personal
and professional accomplishments.

You have to take the good with the bad.

You can always move to another school and receive bonuses, or pay
increases.

The problem is not any teacher I know wants to get anyone mad at her.

So therefore, you are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Oh well, speak up or shut up.
Denise

[Unregistered]

that last poster has a real respect problem. some sort of self hatred seems to be coloring his negative opinion of teachers. what makes him think college profs are more qualified to speak than a high school teacher?

Examine the term "Higher" in "Higher Education." I have taught at both levels, and I found teaching at the K-12 level to be more satisfying. However, a college professor is given wider latitude. Nearly everyone hates being proselytized, but at least the students at the college level can (1) recognize it for what it is, and (2) walk away from it.

By the way, while there are a few teachers at the high school level with doctorates (I'm one of them), the majority of them have only a bachelor's degree. This is a far cry from a university, where the majority are true experts in a field.

As for respect, I usually reserve it for my students and their parents when it comes to these issues. I fully respect the parents' rights to raise their children in the manner they see fit (as long as it doesn't lead to juvenile delinquency). So I don't push my own political ideology onto them. I wish more of my colleagues held the same respect for the family as I do.

I have more degrees than my wife who teaches university and I have published more work than most profs. My "drivel" in the world history class I teach is what keeps students motivated and tuned in.

Getting up in front of a class and jabbering one's own political philosophy as a means of persuasion is not teaching; it's preaching. The goal of preaching is not to examine an issue objectively and from both sides of an argument, but to convert. I have some colleagues that confuse teaching with preaching, and I rue the day they were hired.

[Unregistered]

Getting up in front of a class and jabbering one's own political philosophy as a means of persuasion is not teaching; it's preaching. The goal of preaching is not to examine an issue objectively and from both sides of an argument, but to convert. I have some colleagues that confuse teaching with preaching, and I rue the day they were hired.

What a pitiful lack of respect you show for teachers and for the basis of democracy, free speech. The verb you choose for communicating philosophy is "jabbering"? or "preaching"? I certainly hope you are confined to teaching math, tech, or some other trade oriented class. Leave the philosophy to those who have been trained to teach it.

[Unregistered]

What a pitiful lack of respect you show for teachers and for the basis of democracy, free speech.

They have these areas called town squares where you can shout out all the political mumbo-jumbo you wish. Or better yet, you can write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper. Why not wear a sandwich board around town? Or hand out leaflets? At least your audiences will be adults who can tune you out or shout you down if they wish.

So you do have the freedom of speech, make no bones about it. But preaching politics to a captive audience of kids is gutless.

[Tom Tuttle]

So you do have the freedom of speech, make no bones about it. But preaching politics to a captive audience of kids is gutless.

Take note of the rhetoric. Students are 'captives'. Teaching is 'preaching'. and standing up for one's beliefs is 'gutless'. This is textbook propagandizing. The Third Reich had nothing on these new facists.

[Real Live WI Teacher]

I'm amazed that someone (nameless) can quote Mildred's thoughtful response to my redneck baiting so extensively,

So this is your lame attempt to save face? Do you somehow think that you can disguise or dismiss your comments by excusing them as "redneck baiting?"

Think about what you have just said again, and try a different disguise because either your ignorance or your ugliness is showing. You need a serious look in the mirror. Bigots and facists would categorically demean a person with an opposing world view with derogatory name-calling that is class and race based.

Juvenile or defeated bigots would attempt to use that name-calling to excuse or cover more obvious or exposed bigotry and intolerance from their previous post.

It would be respectable to just say the points you were making in a way that doesn't rely on dehumanizing rhetoric that went too far. That's it, not too hard, no big deal. But don't expect to address unacceptable bigotry with an attempt to create laughable or righteous bigotry, it doesn't fly.

[Unregistered]

Students are 'captives'.

Answer this simple question, "Can your students simply get up and walk out?"

They are very much a captive audience. In fact, they are the epitome of a captive audience.

Teaching is 'preaching'.

Teaching is preaching when the teacher's own personal opinions are more importan than objective knowledge. I think I made that point very clear.

and standing up for one's beliefs is 'gutless'.

Standing up for one's belief in front of an audience of kids is truly gutless. How many of these teachers take their message to the streets? Almost none of them. Rather, they preach at the kids because they know the kids are in no position to counter their arguments. That is the very definition of gutless. No, make that "cowardly."

This is textbook propagandizing. The Third Reich had nothing on these new facists.

That's right. Compare us to people who murdered millions of people, and then say that we are worse. Go ahead, because no reasonable person can possibly buy it. You are simply showing everyone how hysterical your arguments really are.

[Unregistered]

This board has the typical group of teachers that are at every school, the ones who whine and complaine. Maybe you should try and spend more time doing lesson plans to become effective teachers if you trully would like some respect. I am sure in the amount of time you have wasted reading/replying to this thread you could have done some work that would make you a better teacher instead of just talking about it.

The best part of education is the students, the worst part is working with all the whiney teachers!!!

[Unregistered]

The day you started whining about other teachers is the day you became one of the whiners.

[Unregistered]

It's not "payed" but "paid". I'm scared as to what you might be teaching your students.

Why do we have to be payed so little? Come on I've been teaching for 7 years, and still get a bum salary, we have needs.

[Unregistered]

I notice that you, Lisa, have not mentioned how many years of teaching experience you have. Could you impart this information?

[Equestrianchik21]

Students today have little or no respect for anything.
Brooklyn Teacher

That is wrong as a teacher to believe students today dont have respect! As a HS Graduate and a college student heading toward my degree, i believe that quote is skewed! Where i grew up and went to school, yes we had bomb threats and disruptive students, but as a state i believe that its not the students fault, it where your school is located. If you look into a school in the middle of a city (no offense just using it as an example) students in that case don't have the knowledge to understand good class room behavior! With gangs, violence and early independence! Then you look into a school that is on the flip side, out of the city in a town that is full of more advantaged students, they realize that they have a place to go to, and they need to succeed to achieve there schools high standards! If your school doesn't set high standards why should a student want to succeed! When theirs no point to! My high school was known as one of the best High Schools in the state with numerous opportunity's for the student to excel with AP Class's to Honors to many many extra curricular activities! And a vocational school! Giving a student many ways to succeed but if you compare my school to a school 10 mins across town lines, you will see the opposite students not excelling because the opportunity inst there for them to! Its not the student its location! As a town and a community you should set high standards because when you set them the student only wants to maintain what they have (extra curricular activities) and if you lose you standings then your school loses government support! I believe it worked for my town and will work for others striving for good standings! Its not the Students is the Location and poor standards your town and TEACHERS place upon their students!

College Student!!