Posted on 06/22/2005 2:04:21 PM PDT by calcowgirl
(snip)
Schwarzenegger has said he remains open to negotiating a compromise on all of his proposed initiatives, even though they're heading for the ballot. If so, he should start with the tenure proposal. It's an odd issue to go to war over anyway, considering the multitude of education initiatives he could be staking his political career on.
Written by Bonnie Garcia, a Republican assemblywoman from El Centro, it was plucked from obscurity without much analysis. After a merit pay proposal for teachers fell by the wayside, tenure became the No. 1 issue by default.
The initiative would make two changes to tenure laws. One would lengthen the probationary period for teachers, during which they can be dismissed without cause, from the current two years to five years. After that they'd be entitled to due-process protections known as tenure. The other change would permit school districts to dismiss tenured teachers who receive two consecutive poor performance reviews.
There probably are some new teachers who shouldn't receive tenure but manage to slip under the radar for two years and get it. But a five-year probation period would be counterproductive. It would prolong a new teacher's job insecurity and create one more barrier, discouraging college graduates from pursuing teaching. Attracting and retaining good teachers remains a far bigger problem than granting tenure to bad ones.
Once teachers get tenure, it's difficult and expensive to dismiss them for unsatisfactory performance.
Defining poor performance as two consecutive bad reviews would appear simple and straightforward. The problem, which the school boards' association discovered when reading the fine print, is that teachers would still be entitled to contest bad evaluations, with witnesses, evidentiary hearings and lengthy appeals process before the Commission on Professional Competence. The initiative wouldn't reform the due-process rights that discourage districts from taking action.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
1088. Public School Teachers. Waiting Period for Permanent Status. Dismissal. Initiative Statute.
(aka Put the Kids First Act)
File No. SA05RF0019
Full Text (PDF File 177kb/ 5 pages))
Full Analysis (html) from the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO)
LAO Summary: This initiative makes two changes to existing state law: Extends Probationary Period to Five Years and Expands Conditions Under Which Permanent Employees May Be Dismissed.
I have a better idea.
Eliminate tenure completely.
In my state, tenure does NOT protect teachers who are not doing their job. You have to understand that tenure was originally instituted to protect teachers who held unpopular political views. I am one of the few conservative teachers in my building. My union is not fond of me, and sometimes, some of the more liberal parents aren't either. Tenure protects me from their ire. It would never protect me if I was not doing my job. This year in my classroom when asked by my History students who the three greatest presidents of the 20th century were, I said without hesitation, Roosevelt, Roosevelt, and Reagan. I caught a lot of guff for my choice of Reagan; but I can't be touched because of tenure.
"The initiative would make two changes to tenure laws. One would lengthen the probationary period for teachers, during which they can be dismissed without cause, from the current two years to five years. After that they'd be entitled to due-process protections known as tenure. The other change would permit school districts to dismiss tenured teachers who receive two consecutive poor performance reviews."
It's a start ... .
Ideally tenure should be abolished and people evaluated the same as in the private sector with standards pertinent to teaching
> ...prolong a new teacher's job insecurity and create one more barrier, discouraging college graduates from pursuing teaching.
Gee, "job insecurity". Welcome to the daily work experience of the private sector, where the "security" or "insecurity" of your job is entwined with your personal performance. When performance influences "security", it also influences salary and serves to ENCOURAGE graduates to pursue those jobs, NOT DIScourage them.
Despite the campaign talking points of "Guaranteed Job for Life," tenure doesn't protect them from not doing their job in California either. All it does is give them a right to a hearing if they think they were terminated unjustly.
During the 2 year period, they are essentially on probation, and can be terminated on a whim, with no requirement for the administration to show cause. The initiative to be put on the ballot would increase that probationary period to 5 years.
Tenure does not guarantee one a job. It simply takes them off the probationary period and requires that the administration show cause for dismissal. Remember, leftists control the education system in California. How many conservative teachers do you think there will be if they can be fired on a whim?
I don't know any other profession that receives such legislated job-protection.
You beat me to it. I'd go one step farther. Eliminate public schools altogether.
How many tenured teachers are released each year in California?
The classical rationale for tenure is that some research, grounded in fact, is still unpopular with administrators. Tenure is intended to allow truth to lead where it may. Given the dominance of leftist professorate and university administrations, tenure protects conservatives more than it does leftists.
I am not a fan of standards for such, because I see such issues as sufficiently complex to warrant a marketplace in competing methods by which to optimize the outcome.
"You beat me to it. I'd go one step farther. Eliminate public schools altogether."
And with it the NEA !!!
From what I'm reading, all k-12 tenure does is give the teacher the right to a hearing in case of dismissal. No guaranteed job. They can be fired for poor performance and a host of different reasons. How is that different than the private sector that would provide some sort of wrongful termination appeal process?
Without tenure, a 10 year teacher could be dismissed for NO REASON. No requirement to show bad performance. No requirement to show cause at all. They could dismiss all red-heads, if they felt like it. That sounds like a huge disincentive to enter the teaching field, in my book. It also sounds like the demise of conservative teachers, given who is leading the education system. No private sector puts employees on probation for five years. What am I missing?
What market? The schools are run by administrators and school administration is a form of appointive politics. Teachers are evaluated by how well they serve the political agenda of administration.
"It would prolong a new teacher's job insecurity"
So what? I work in the private sector and I have job insecurity. I do better work. What's the problem?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.