Teacher tenure upheld in California

Boy does this sound familiar ...

 

More abortions would mean less chance that bad students would get in the way of the union's noble efforts.

 

Oops

 

That's not what this case is about. It's about whether the extant tenure procedures/protections lead to bad teachers disproportionately being placed in classrooms for poor/minority students. I think it's a stupid legal theory, mind you, but that's whence comes the constitutional challenge.

 

I'm not naming names ...

 

You forgot to say vis a vis, though.

 

I'm not really seeing how that's a much of a distinction--it is ultimately about whether the law is constitutional. And it's certainly not a material distinction for the purposes of rebutting OT's argument.

 

The difference between "can the legislature constitutionally enact tenure provisions" and "are the provisions as enacted constitutional" is a huge one.

 

That's the fons et origo of my rhetorical strategy.

 

Not for the purpose of whether--as OT suggests--the state has to point to some constitutional provision saying teacher tenure is a constitutional right.

 

You opened that up with your "Can you point me to the provision of the California Constitution that prohibits teacher tenure?," but you and OT can squabble all you want. I've got enough on my plate keeping cranberry out of the ditches.

 

Blurting out meaningless innuendo as a means to worm out of a discussion when you don't have an adequate response. Another tactic I've come to expect from you.