Teacher tenure upheld in California

You're of course right. I noticed that care and concern in your and OOP's comments regarding how making it easy to dismiss bad teachers is the district's problem, not the union's.

 

Please understand I don't give a fuck about what you choose to notice or not notice about my care and concern about anything. It's disingenuous to make ridiculous assumptions based on my support for due process rights as an important component in collective bargaining agreements.

 

According to testimony at trial, in a state with 275,000 teachers, the number of tenured teachers fired for poor performance each year is 2.2.

Yeah, I think it's fair to say we're looking at something other than the solution that works for everyone, most prominently students.

 

Why you mad, dude? I'm agreeing with you. Your position is as clear as a bell.

"[They should] negotiate better contracts ..."

 

I'm not mad in the least. I enjoying pointing out when you disingenuously misrepresent people to fit your dumbass world views.

 

By that standard we could have a lot of fun for weeks on end.

Can you point out the provision in the California Constitution that prevents school administrators from firing bad teachers? Better yet, can you point out the provision in the US Constitution that prohibits prayer in public schools?

 

I'd guess this has far more to do with the fact that there is a teacher shortage of crisis proportion in California than any inability to dismiss bad teachers due to stringent due process. How many teachers did districts even attempt to fire?

 

It most certainly could be argued that teachers unions are the most influential factor in all of education. If we accept that, then you are arguing that the most influential factor in all of education does not have educating students as its top priority.

And that's how we've gone from a system where we used to teach Latin in high school and now have to teach remedial English in college.

 

Quoting someone directly really is dirty pool, isn't it?

 

Ignorant as always, OT. This case has nothing to do with whether there is a constitutional right to teacher tenure. It's about whether the state constitution prohibits California legislature from enacting the laws that provide tenure protections. The plaintiffs--as the party challenging the laws--have the burden of proving that.

 

Cran doesn't give a fuck.

 

Actually, taking a snippet of quote from a post without providing the context in which it was delivered in order to suit your incessant need to sound "clever" to the Old Tony's of the board is something I've come to expect of you.