Excellent post. As any good scientist knows, you cannot come to valid conclusions about an experiment if you have multiple variables.

 

As a teacher, I hold MYSELF to high standards and expectations. I don't mind anyone critiquing my performance. Tie my pay into my work, not the outcome of all of my students. I have some that will become doctors and engineers (and scored distinguished on the CATS science test, 30+ on the ACT in science), but I also have those that slept through yesterday's ACT and some that couldn't care less about the CATS test. Which students should I get my pay based on?

 

You go girl.:clap::thumb:

 

And I would add that those who go onto be construction workers, welders, beauticians and mechanics are just as successful as the doctors and lawyers.

I still haven't heard a market justification for tenure. I see the opposition of the merit pay, but justify tenure when no other profession has it.

Though I may be in the minority, I am in education and am against tenure. LBBC is correct in saying that a tenured teacher can be fired with proper documentation. However, I have witnessed too many instances where administrations have continually allowed poor performing tenured teachers to stay in district because of the hassle that comes with along with providing required documentation. I also often hear that the threat of backlash from the teachers' unions keeps administrations from pursuing the release of these teachers. I would love to see the improvement in a poor teachers' performance if the promise of tenure is taken away. I bet it would be drastic.

 

And to be clear, I don't want to lump all tenured teachers into the same category. Poor performing tenured teachers are rare, but they do exist. Fortunately, most tenured teachers I have taught with with work as hard, if not harder than the first day they were on the job. And for these teachers, tenure is not really necessary as they earn the privilege to continue teaching with each carefully planned lesson.

You go girl.:clap::thumb:

 

And I would add that those who go onto be construction workers, welders, beauticians and mechanics are just as successful as the doctors and lawyers.

 

It's a different, though no less important, success.

Though I may be in the minority, I am in education and am against tenure. LBBC is correct in saying that a tenured teacher can be fired with proper documentation. However, I have witnessed too many instances where administrations have continually allowed poor performing tenured teachers to stay in district because of the hassle that comes with along with providing required documentation. I also often hear that the threat of backlash from the teachers' unions keeps administrations from pursuing the release of these teachers. I would love to see the improvement in a poor teachers' performance if the promise of tenure is taken away. I bet it would be drastic.

 

And to be clear, I don't want to lump all tenured teachers into the same category. Poor performing tenured teachers are rare, but they do exist. Fortunately, most tenured teachers I have taught with with work as hard, if not harder than the first day they were on the job. And for these teachers, tenure is not really necessary as they earn the privilege to continue teaching with each carefully planned lesson.

 

I agree. I couldn't care less about my tenure. I never think about it.

I still haven't heard a market justification for tenure. I see the opposition of the merit pay, but justify tenure when no other profession has it.

 

So senority in unions is not the same as tenure?

 

One justification is that a tenured teacher cannot be fired because they are wanting to cut expenses by firing all the higher paid teachers.

I agree. I couldn't care less about my tenure. I never think about it.

 

I think about it in the regards that if there is teacher cuts and a position is cut in my department, my seniority/tenure would mean I shouldn't be the one getting cut.

I think about it in the regards that if there is teacher cuts and a position is cut in my department, my seniority/tenure would mean I shouldn't be the one getting cut.

 

I would think that my performance in the classroom as a teacher would be the reason that I shouldn't be the one getting cut. If it works out that I do (all teachers in my department are excellent), then I would think that my resume and experience as a teacher would allow me to easily find another position.

I would think that my performance in the classroom as a teacher would be the reason that I shouldn't be the one getting cut. If it works out that I do (all teachers in my department are excellent), then I would think that my resume and experience as a teacher would allow me to easily find another position.

 

Well said.:thumb:

I would think that my performance in the classroom as a teacher would be the reason that I shouldn't be the one getting cut. If it works out that I do (all teachers in my department are excellent), then I would think that my resume and experience as a teacher would allow me to easily find another position.

 

I am not doubting this, but they just cut 10,000 positions in California, I am trying to find the link!

If we are going the merit pay route for teachers (which I agree with), then they should be evaluated based on classroom observation and their teaching skills. Test scores are not an accurate measure of how good/poor a teacher is.

So senority in unions is not the same as tenure?

 

One justification is that a tenured teacher cannot be fired because they are wanting to cut expenses by firing all the higher paid teachers.

 

Unions have collective bargaining agreements, which are contracts negotiated at arms length. Tenure is created by statute. The union agreements do not prohibit firings at all; they merely hold that in the event of layoffs it is done according to a seniority system. It is not the same for teachers.

 

If a corporation can fire its middle level management in order to cut high-priced cost, what makes senior teachers so special that they should not be fired in order to save costs??

 

If you argue for market comparability, you should get market comparability.

I am not doubting this, but they just cut 10,000 positions in California, I am trying to find the link!

 

Science is one of the areas in demand in Kentucky. I am certified in all areas except Biology. I am also certified in history, though those spots are a dime a dozen.

 

My chemistry degree would also make me marketable for some industry positions.

 

Truly, I feel for those that have to worry about a job and am thankful that I feel secure in mine, with or without tenure.

I would think that my performance in the classroom as a teacher would be the reason that I shouldn't be the one getting cut. If it works out that I do (all teachers in my department are excellent), then I would think that my resume and experience as a teacher would allow me to easily find another position.

 

Well said.:thumb:

 

I transferred to do the alternative school to work with those kids.

The present principal has never seen me teach in a regular classroom.

They cut the program and I will be able to transfer to the department I left.

Unions have collective bargaining agreements, which are contracts negotiated at arms length. Tenure is created by statute. The union agreements do not prohibit firings at all; they merely hold that in the event of layoffs it is done according to a seniority system. It is not the same for teachers.

 

If a corporation can fire its middle level management in order to cut high-priced cost, what makes senior teachers so special that they should not be fired in order to save costs??

 

If you argue for market comparability, you should get market comparability.

 

You do realize that us teachers fall under different laws and it is illegal for us to strike like union members can.

 

On your question, that can be done and has been done.