One of the reasons for tenure was many years ago when principals used to look to get rid of a teacher who a) they wanted rid of for personal reason; b) they wanted a family member/friend in that place.

 

Good teachers were being replaced who had been in districts for awhile for family reasons. That is one of the reasons that the nepotism rules went into effect with KERA.

 

It seems I remember that there was an elementary school in EKY that almost every single member of that school's staff was from one family except for 4-5.

 

It wasn't about hiring and keeping the good teachers but providing jobs for the family.

 

Teachers now have the protection to stand up and fight for what is best for the kids without the fear of reprisal by losing their job.

 

Now some are going to quickly jump in and say well I don't have that protection.

 

In your case, your supervisor is a representative of the OWNER of the company. The principal is not the OWNER of the school and does not have the same personal assets invested the company that would give him the right to do what he pleases.

In 14 years of teaching, I have yet to see tenure cause a teacher to NOT be fired if he/she was not meeting expectations as a teacher.

 

21 years here and me neither.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think I'm being clear. In most private industries (non-union), there is no job protection for those who are meeting expectations. Their jobs are subject to many things...economy, restructuring, take overs, cut backs, etc. Despite excellent job performance, many in the private industry can, have, and will lose their jobs and have no recourse whatsoever.

 

I'm not disputing the theory of tenure. I'm simply pointing out that it is a benefit that most outside of the field do not enjoy. There is certainly a definite security in knowing your job is yours as long as you perform to expectations.

 

Tenure will not protect a teacher if his/her position is cut. How is this different than what you are explaining?

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think I'm being clear. In most private industries (non-union), there is no job protection for those who are meeting expectations. Their jobs are subject to many things...economy, restructuring, take overs, cut backs, etc. Despite excellent job performance, many in the private industry can, have, and will lose their jobs and have no recourse whatsoever.

 

I'm not disputing the theory of tenure. I'm simply pointing out that it is a benefit that most outside of the field do not enjoy. There is certainly a definite security in knowing your job is yours as long as you perform to expectations.

 

Don't disagree with that bolded statement at all.

 

BUT, on the underlined statement those things affect schools, too, and many school employees have lost their jobs for the same reason.

 

The only ones that I can say TRULY have protection would be the core teachers in English, Math, Science, Social Studies.

 

Example, Arts & Humanities was a big push 4-6 years ago. Districts across the state were hiring A & H teachers. Now the state has decided that they are not testing A & H teachers. Many of them have tenure. But if the classes are cut, guess what happens to their teaching jobs. Cut and they are gone. Tenure did not help them keep their A & H job.

Tenure will not protect a teacher if his/her position is cut. How is this different than what you are explaining?

 

I guess it's not, because I'm obviously not explaining myself well. :lol:

Don't disagree with that bolded statement at all.

 

BUT, on the underlined statement those things affect schools, too, and many school employees have lost their jobs for the same reason.

 

The only ones that I can say TRULY have protection would be the core teachers in English, Math, Science, Social Studies.

 

Example, Arts & Humanities was a big push 4-6 years ago. Districts across the state were hiring A & H teachers. Now the state has decided that they are not testing A & H teachers. Many of them have tenure. But if the classes are cut, guess what happens to their teaching jobs. Cut and they are gone. Tenure did not help them keep their A & H job.

 

Gotcha.

I guess it's not, because I'm obviously not explaining myself well. :lol:

 

I will help you.

 

Tenure does help, the teacher that has been in the English classroom for 20 years and is an outstanding teacher and a teaching position in the English department is going to be made. The English teacher with 6 years of experience will be let go before the 20 year teacher will. It helps there where in your case the 20-year person who is making more money would be the one let go to help lower costs.

 

The big difference is that in your job, the bottom line is making money.

That is not, nor should be, the bottom line in a school. The better teacher should be the one to stay. And in many cases tenure does help make sure the better teacher stays regardless of how much their salary runs.

 

But in honestly, salary does not come into effect because the principal does not pick up the cost of salaries and he does not care who is making more. Worried about who the best teachers are.

You saw this statement in your article, right?

 

 

 

They are likewise illegal in Kentucky. When some teachers in my district threw the idea around years ago, our principal informed us that our superintendent passed the word on that he would fire protesting teachers immediately. (How's that tenure for you now?)

 

So if every teacher walked, do you think they would have fired all the teachers? Just wondering. BTW, I loathe unions

I will help you.

 

Tenure does help, the teacher that has been in the English classroom for 20 years and is an outstanding teacher and a teaching position in the English department is going to be made. The English teacher with 6 years of experience will be let go before the 20 year teacher will. It helps there where in your case the 20-year person who is making more money would be the one let go to help lower costs.

 

The big difference is that in your job, the bottom line is making money.

That is not, nor should be, the bottom line in a school. The better teacher should be the one to stay. And in many cases tenure does help make sure the better teacher stays regardless of how much their salary runs.

 

But in honestly, salary does not come into effect because the principal does not pick up the cost of salaries and he does not care who is making more. Worried about who the best teachers are.

 

What if the 6 year teacher is the better teacher?

While the calendar is set at the local level, funding comes from the state level. So, if a state is not going to fund the extra days of school, not sure how a local district could afford to add 20-30 days ONTO the school year.

 

I didn't say that the school district should go against what state funding allows, simply stated that it shouldn't be forced on a district from the state. Too many kids in some districts have to work summer jobs, help out on the farm etc etc, so I think the decision should be made by the district based on their areas needs and how good of a move it would be for that area.

 

I'm all for year round schooling, if our country wants to not fall even further behind in academics I think it's a good move. However for Johnny and Jimmy that plan to take over their familys farm when they graduate, they may not see the need for them to be in school year round.

What if the 6 year teacher is the better teacher?

 

Notice I said in my example that the 20-year teacher is an outstanding teacher.

 

If the principal can justify it, I would assume that he could keep the 6-year teacher.

I didn't say that the school district should go against what state funding allows, simply stated that it shouldn't be forced on a district from the state. Too many kids in some districts have to work summer jobs, help out on the farm etc etc, so I think the decision should be made by the district based on their areas needs and how good of a move it would be for that area.

 

I'm all for year round schooling, if our country wants to not fall even further behind in academics I think it's a good move. However for Johnny and Jimmy that plan to take over their familys farm when they graduate, they may not see the need for them to be in school year round.

 

Going back to KERA where the Judge Korns (I think that was the judge) said it was unconstitutional for the state to allow one district to be financially better than the other, I would assume that it would not be allowed for one district to be educationally better in # of days educating kids in that district than another.

 

That is a total guesstimation on my part.

Going back to KERA where the Judge Korns (I think that was the judge) said it was unconstitutional for the state to allow one district to be financially better than the other, I would assume that it would not be allowed for one district to be educationally better in # of days educating kids in that district than another.

 

That is a total guesstimation on my part.

 

Then how do school districts such as Campbell county have year round schooling? I'm not talking days in school, but the school calendar.

This won't make me popular among my educator-friends, BUT

 

Many are saying that to teach longer yet make the same money isn't what they signed up for...

 

 

Well.....many of us in the private sector didn't either. Many people in the private, non-education sector have gone without raises, seen their work loads increased as staffs are cut, and work from home as well to keep up.

 

I know, I know....I don't understand. But I just thought I'd throw out there that it isn't just teachers that are being asked to do more for the same amount of money, and do a lot on their own time as well.

 

Please throw tomatos....they hurt less than potatos.:isurrender:

 

Well Said Rockmom!! :thumb:

Then how do school districts such as Campbell county have year round schooling? I'm not talking days in school, but the school calendar.

 

That is them taking the same number of days that every other district is in school and spreading them out.

 

They teach no more days than any of us. They just have longer fall, Christmas and spring breaks.

 

For example, our fall break is one Friday. I think they are out the entire week.