Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Zimmy, I'm trying to be kinder and gentler.
What in my post, exactly, was incorrect?
It is a fact that tenure guarantees jobs for teachers with seniority, rather than ability. That's what tenure is.
It is also a fact that kids do better with smaller class sizes, meaning more teachers. Yet teachers constantly choose layoffs over benefit reductions. In other words, teachers (and the unions) would rather see a small number of teachers with rich benefits, instead of more teachers with reasonable benefits. That necessarily results in fewer teachers, and that hurts the students.
How can you disagree with any of that?
|
Tenure does not guarentee jobs. Tenure gives some additional protection to teachers who have it. It provides certain rights to reviews and hearings on performance, based on established good record. It prevents a new principal from coming into a school and firing a veteran teacher a month later because they don't like them. If the teacher is not performing, the administration starts the process. I agree that the process may be too slow and bureauocratic, but it does not guarentee jobs to people who don't perform. If the teacher performs appropriately, they are provided greater protection against layoffs compared to those with less seniority or without tenure.
The second item... could you identify one instance where teachers chose layoffs over benefit reductions? If you can, I will respond with all the examples of the antithesis that I have personally been part of.