Proposition 74 would lengthen the duration of the “probation” period during which new schoolteachers could be dismissed at the end of the year without cause from two to five years.
After this period, dismissing teachers with unsatisfactory ratings would be simplified.
Job protections are often a good thing; the notion that one’s livelihood depends on the whims and mood of one’s supervisors isn’t a good thing. But conversely, at some point the web of protections gets so strong that it’s virtually impossible to fire bad employees, and around that time the enterprise begins to be run for the benefit of the employees rather than the other stakeholders.
In vastly simplified blog-speak, that’s a big part of what has happened to public schools in much of the country. They are no longer run primarily for the benefit of the children or community, but instead have become the captives of their employees.
My ex’s husband (who is a great friend and I usually call my “brother-in-law”) left his career in Hollywood to become a high school teacher at a high school in a near-bankrupt poor school district about five years ago.
When we get together to make plans for Littlest Guy, we talk a lot about politics, and his work. He’s a dedicated progressive, can’t understand my support of Bush or the war, but – to put it simply – sees the need to significantly shake up and reform the public education establishment.
He’s voting for 74, as am I.
Teachers (and others) deserve some protection against whimsical or retaliatory firing. But our children, the schools and the taxpayers who pay for them deserve a staff that isn’t marking time until retirement with little concern for the quality of their work – for the quality of education our children get.
I have four kids. The first two went to public school here in Virginia and they have both graduated. The younger two (8 and 5) — well, we thought we would try home schooling just to see if there was a difference.
I was very skeptical, but now I’m a believer. There are some deep, intrinsic problems with the public school system. I don’t know if this prop will help the California kids, but it sounds like a good idea. I don’t understand why education isn’t managed for results. I also don’t understand why a public school teacher should somehow have special rights not to be fired. What about their job makes them so unique? A college professor, sure. But teachers that taxpayers fund? I don’t get it. I don’t like working at the whim of my boss either, but he has to keep performance up or he gets fired. What other way would you want it to work?
The experience of disfunctional Black communities and hyperfunctional Asians shows us some high percentage, maybe even 90%, is up to the family of students and the example set for them at home.
One reason to not fire teachers too easily is they don’t have that much control. They show up and do the best they can.
I whole-heartedly agree with both this Prop and A.L.’s take on it. The public education system is essentially corrupt. Not in the sense that everyone’s on the take, but that there are few controls and checks and balances on it. A system that should be working in the favor of kids, parents, and taxpayers in that order seems run for the benefit of teacher’s unions and administrators.
The best cure would be honest and open competition. Failing that, the strongest accountability measures feasible for quality of work and product. This is one of the former. Vote Yes.
I recently saw an interesting talk on c-span by the author of *Education Myths : What Special-Interest Groups Want You to Believe About Our Schools and Why it Isn’t So*
Among a bunch of very eye-opening facts, he made the observation that teachers unions are a lobbying group like any other, but people don’t recognise that. People assume that because it involves children, teachers unions must behave differently than say the sugar lobby, or a cattleman’s association. When, in fact, they operate no better or worse than any other organization that advocats for it’s members.
So while people might take what the sugar lobby says with a grain of salt (his pun, not mine), they accept whatever teacher’s unions say without appropriate scepticism. Pretty interesting. I’ve yet to read the book but “here’s the Amazon link”:http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0742549771/102-0813254-6103335?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance
The biggest change we can make is to induce young immature and uneducated women to delay childbearing until they are more mature and educated. Kids brought up in more stable housholds are more likely to do well in school.
This is a much bigger issue than I-74, but it is what will make a real difference.
I suggest we start with using effective sex education widely. Yes, there are programs that have been demonstrated to have an effect on the rate of teen pregnancies.
California uses them and saw the biggest precentage drop in teen pregnancies in the nation. Texas rejected those programs since they were not abstinence only, and saw one of the smallest drops. (Note teen pregnancies are dropping nation wide. Also that the rate in the US dwarfs that of other developed western nations.)
We parents lost control of the public schools when the Teacher’s Unions became powerful. We no longer control any part of the curriculum, the conduct of either teachers or students, and certainly not the allocation of tax dollars. What we have is a system that operates only for the benefit of the teachers union; we only can hope that they want to teach our kids and can teach. So if you don’t have the 20K or so to send your kids to private schools (and trust me, you better watch what is being taught there too; you have zero control over what is taught there), home schooling is a solution to those of us with the stamina to teach and the subject knowledge. One thing home schooling can’t supply is the band, sports, various clubs, and other social interactions so important for children growing up.
Government schools give students social skills. Skills like using drugs, committing crimes, smoking, drinking, getting pregnant, fighting, all kinds of inappropriate social skills. Gov schools don’t teach anything useful unfortunately. Try to change them and the political powers that be come down like a sack of bricks. Schools of delinquency are protected politically far better than the borders are protected. Teachers unions can do anything they want and their big brothers in the legislature will cover for them no questions asked. Unions bring the vote in that’s all they ask.
AL (basenote):
(Or anyone else, for that matter) In your opener for this series, you used the word “tenure” to describe this. Can anyone even justify to me the reason for “tenure” at the high school education level? I don’t much like the notion of tenure even at the university level– I’m philosophically opposed to the idea of jobs-for-life, and I think the system is open to very long-term abuse of the sort we’re seeing today. But when the chips are down, I understand the need to protect the truly creative members of society and leave strong protections for them against the temptation of politicians at the state or federal level to try soft-purges from time to time, so I don’t complain really loudly.
But… at the high school level? Why do we have this, again? Or is the word “tenure” being used differently at this level than at the university level?
Seth (#4):
Assume 90% of everyone you hear from in the typical new media are, or are motivated by, lobby groups. This applies to my own fields of engineering and computer science as well, by the way– I occasionally need to restrain myself when our lobbyists start turning the crank about the imminent failure of higher technical education, when what they really want is more money, or their outrage over (say) DARPA’s shift from computer science to biological engineering, when what they really mean is, “Don’t cut off my gravy train! Waaah!”
It makes for a very cynical outlook on life, which I try not to fall prey to. Much.
Marcus,
“Tenure” is being used here in a de facto sense, rather than de jure.
AL
_Proposition 74 would lengthen the duration of the “probation” period during which new schoolteachers could be dismissed at the end of the year *without cause* from two to five years._
bq. _”(c) The receipt by a permanent employee of two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations conducted pursuant to Article 11 (commencing with Section 44660) of Chapter 3 shall constitute unsatisfactory performance as the term is used in this section, and the governing board of the school district may, in its discretion, and without regard for Sections 44934 and 44938, dismiss the employee by written notice on the basis of the employee’s evaluation reports. Within 30 days of receipt of the notice of dismissal, the employee may request an administrative hearing which shall be conducted pursuant to Section 44944.”_
I don’t think you’re getting what you stating here A.L. The dismissal *is not without cause*. The dismissal is based on _two consecutive_ unsatisfactory evaluations. I am not sure if those occur on a yearly basis read Article 11 for that information. The dismissal is also based on a modification to Section 44944 of which is not shown in you’re link concerning the proposition. I don’t know what that modification is but you might want to look it up.
I also find it rather ironic that you would vote in favor for this proposition based on the welfare of the children we entrust to our educational facilities but you wouldn’t vote in favor of “Proposition 73”:http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov05/voter_info_pdf/text73.pdf entrusting parents to act with responsible demeanor concerning an offspring’s pregnancy.
USMC –
Sorry, was using “cause” in the HR sense – theft, malfeasance, etc. Sloppy on my part.
Clearly the proposed law allows teachers who have not attained “permanent” status to be let go for poor performance, as it also makes it more feasible to let go permanent teachers who are poor performers.
A.L.
But how are teachers really evaluated? You think there’s some fair and unbiased method? Not! It will boil down to one thing: those that are kiss-asses to their vice principals will be the ones who get high marks and gain tenure. Those who are independent-minded will get ousted.
It’s not teacher unions that are killing America’s educational system, it’s the “Doctors” of Education who become administrators who are responsible for the decline of schools in America. Give teachers real control of their classes — control over curricula, teaching methods, discipline, and you’ll see a marked improvement in public schools. Ironically, by undermining the Unions, you wil be fostering the centralized bureaucracy that stifles initiative and innovation.
Prop 74 is pablum, and will probably make our schools worse than they already are.
–Beo (an ex-teacher)
Beo (#12) has made some good points. Assuming that only ass-kissers will stay around seems a little overt-the-top, however. “Having good relations with your boss” is the prerequisite, which is not the same thing as ass-kissing. Mature people can and do disagree over matters of work in a cordial manner.
But I think the real value of the comment had to do with the nature of being over-constrained. This is the result of laws in almost all cases. These laws are a result of the political process — special interest groups rallying for this or that social cause to be taught, or this or that teaching manner to be utilized. Adding up a hundred years of this, it is no wonder the teachers are frustrated.
Coming up with yet another political cause (freeing the hands of teachers!) does not solve this problem. I agree with prop 74, yet I understand it does not address the real problems in our schools. In fact, passing yet another law or proposition probably encourages the type of overmangement and micro-policy making that got us here to begin with.