Half Moon Bay Review
 
 
 
 
 
TalkAbout Start a topic Login Create Login Forgot Password  
All Categories Around Town Elections Entertainment/Dining Schools
City Council Environment Sports Beyond the Coastside Catch All
Clay Lambert's Blog Mark Foyer's Blog Stacy Trevenon's blog Mark Noack's blog Bill Murray's Blog

A Richly Deserved Kick In The Teeth

Good to see the teacher's unions taken down a notch in this ruling:

Web Link

It's good for the students, good for the teachers and good for the state.

Let's hope it spreads to other states so we can eliminate the cancer of "tenure" in our K-12 public schools.

Next up -- vouchers! Even better for students and teachers!


Comments

The article states: "In the ruling, Judge Treu agreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that California’s current laws make it impossible to get rid of the system’s numerous low-performing and incompetent teachers; that seniority rules requiring the newest teachers to be laid off first were harmful; and that granting tenure to teachers after only two years on the job was farcical, offering far too little time for a fair assessment of their skills. - - - Further, Judge Treu said, the least effective teachers are disproportionately assigned to schools filled with low-income and minority students. The situation violates those students’ constitutional right to an equal education, he determined.

The result in this case is good - but the decision is nonetheless a bad decision.

The idea that the rules in question violate the kid's constitutional rights is absurd. The judge simply made that up in legislating from the bench.

The reforms in question need to be made. They should be made inside the school system or by the legislature.


The key is that the adverse effects of keeping bad teachers on the payroll because of tenure policies falls disproportionately on poor and minority students.

I suppose some may argue that an acceptable "fix" would be to maintain a tenure system, but spread the bad teachers among schools with white kids from wealthy families.


Kick in the teeth? Cancer of tenure?

Such rhetoric and hardly required as the idea of only two years needed to get tenure is intuitively absurd.

The idea that the rules in question violate the kid's constitutional rights is absurd.

One does have a Consttuional right to an education: -- Web Link

I get the drift though of what Barnus is saying. It is a stretch to assert that workplace rules can be used to sue for an outcome that could never be guaranteed not matter what.

Next up -- vouchers! Even better for students and teachers!

+1 but if you go around talking about kicking in teeth and the cancer of tenure, you ain't goin make with Chairman Mao, or something like that: -- Web Link


>>The key is that the adverse effects of keeping bad teachers on the payroll because of tenure policies falls disproportionately on poor and minority students.<<

It is often just the opposite.

Teachers with the most time in grade get first choice at open positions in schools in the better part of town. It is the newer, not yet burned out or disillusioned teachers that get sent to the poorer schools.

That part is good for the poorer schools.

-


Michelle Rhee thinks the decision will have a good result: Web Link

It's too bad that the folks in DC rewarded her for her improvements to the DC school system by running her out of town.


I agree that tenure is way too easy to attain. Just putting in time should not be the only factor.

But kicking in teeth? Cancer of tenure?

The hatred of teacher's unions is oozing from you.

Why are you so angry?


You're awfully quick these days to accuse people of what -you imagine- they're feeling, BMTH.

Seriously, why all the Diva-Drama lately? What's going on?


What's going on?

A Richly Deserved Kick In The Teeth

....so we can eliminate the cancer of "tenure" in our K-12 ....

Nobody deserves to be kicked in the teeth and calling tenure a cancer is just a bit over the top.

Your xenophobia disgusts me.

Your rhetoric about Obama is childish.

I am tired of being called a bigot by such as you.

I am tired of Francis's constant need to demonize people that don't agree with him.

And, I am starting to think I sound like you and Francis. Very disappointing.


Lol...my "xenophobia?" That's rich. How about your unwillingness to understand another point of view, preferring to name call when you don't win the round.

Too bad, but I put the environment before Big Immigration, the economy or politics. Call me all the names you want about it, I could not give a cr@p. I don't like the population bomb. Or creating a Crisis-for-Votes policy. So sue me. And I'll keep posting.


BTW, your style truthfully has nothing to do with my posting or anyone else's. No excuses. No blaming it on anyone. You're responsible for what you write.

FD is not flaming anyone. Funny, he and I can disagree without ripping each other to shreds. Do you understand that saying an organization getting a kick in the teeth isn't anything like wishing it on a real person?


BTW, your style truthfully has nothing to do with my posting or anyone else's. No excuses. No blaming it on anyone. You're responsible for what you write.

Yeah, that one was a bit whiny. Your observation sounds like something I would say.

Touché.


Thanks Bud.


Add a comment

Please login to comment on this topic.

Login Here

Create a Login

Powered by Podium