The American Spectator

FloridaTeacher| 5.4.10 @ 6:47AM

Speaking as a teacher, I agree wholeheartedly with the basic premise of this article. Although I think seniority should be A factor in teacher retention, it should not be THE factor (perhaps not even the major factor). Every year, I watch younger teachers get booted out (and some not so young, but career changers, such as myself) simply because they do not have enough years in the system. It doesn't matter whether or not they are qualified. They don't have the seniority, so they have to go. No questions asked. Shame.

Alan Brooks| 5.4.10 @ 10:21PM

America is too large a nation to have a decent, decentralized educational 'system'.

Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 5.4.10 @ 7:58AM

If they really want to start making real cuts, start with the Teachers in the rubber rooms, like the ones in NYC (there are hundreds of them). Paying Teachers who have been kicked out of the classroom, for whatever reason (like having sex with their students!!), and letting them watch TV for eight hours a day as their place of duty, so that they can make it to their retirement, is a joke (and the joke's on you). Some of these Teachers have been in these rubber rooms for "YEARS", and the Taxpayer is paying them their full salary, with full benefits too (and they still get their summers off, don't you know?). Guilty or Not Guilty, it shouldn't matter, they can fight that out in court later on, all of these so-called Teachers have to go. Fire them all today, cut off their retirement benefits, and let the courts decide if it was right or wrong. They're not Teachers anymore, so fire them, and stop robbing the Taxpayers!!

http://www.newyorker.com/repor.....fact_brill

Curly Smith| 5.4.10 @ 8:12AM

Why is there a dropout "crisis"? The common, and false, theory is that the students don't understand the value of an education. The truth is that the students fully understand the negative value of the education that they're receiving. They understand that their time is being utterly and completely wasted and that they'd be better off entering the minimum wage market sooner rather than later. But as schools generally receive their state and federal funds based on attendance, it is a "crisis" for the schools.

The key metric for public schools is attendance, which is not a measure of academic achievement. Like any other failing monopoly, public schools are internally focused rather than concentrating on the needs of their customers (which, FYI school administrators, are the students). And, as we all know, it's not a problem that can be solved by infusing more money.

L. Ross| 5.4.10 @ 11:56AM

Curly:

I agree with much of what you write. My wife graduated from an inner city school which she describes as not much more than babysitting. I am frequently suprised at what she did not learn in high school and junior high. However, as poor as our upper level education has become, it is still a fact that high school graduates have substantially higher earning averages than non graduates, about $7,000/year higher according to the last census. Certainly there are huge exceptions, but they are still just exceptions. Here is the source document.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p23-210.pdf

Roy| 5.4.10 @ 12:30PM

Difference is that little? I would have thought higher.

And, don't you think that both things correlating with a third factor(intelligence, willingness to go along to get along, dedication, etc)? Rather than the knowledge learned in HS, which even at a GOOD HS, for an intelligent student, is pretty dubiously relevant to 95% of jobs.

Chuck Presley| 5.4.10 @ 9:28AM

This points back to a fundamental problem in the teaching profession. There is no proficient way to evaluate the true effectiveness of a teacher to "teach". We have all known teachers who were lousy teachers. We've also worked with people with degrees in various other disciplines who are not capable of performing the work in their chosen degree. Getting a degree to teach does not mean they will be good teachers. I personally know a local university has NEVER flunked or denied a degree to any person because they didn't have the skills or aptitude to be a teacher, but they graduate because they were able to complete the academic requirements.

Unions talk like they're all for a fair system to score and evaluate teachers, but have yet to come up with a plan or policy of their own to make this talk a reality. Like the political party the teachers unions are so adept at calling the party of "no"... These self serving unions do the same thing when it comes to measuring a teachers performance . For decades, all I've heard from the teacher unions is "no"... it's not fair and it won't work whenever a new idea is considered. Unions just say "no".

So, school districts, in order to reduce the number of teachers due to financial considerations, are left with an old legacy policy of first-hired first-fired. Only idea I've consistently heard from the unions is give us more money and we'll do a better job.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.4.10 @ 9:48AM

I find this article rather humorous. When you consider the fact that public schools are failing around the nation, and that many inner city schools have drop out rates in excess of 67%, what does it matter who works there. Might it not be time consider that public schools have seen their day and there are other ways of education children? Personally, if they all closed down I don't think we would miss much.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.4.10 @ 9:48AM

I find this article rather humorous. When you consider the fact that public schools are failing around the nation, and that many inner city schools have drop out rates in excess of 67%, what does it matter who works there. Might it not be time consider that public schools have seen their day and there are other ways of education children? Personally, if they all closed down I don't think we would miss much.

Bill| 5.4.10 @ 9:50AM

That one sentence should state "educating children" not "education children."

Petronius| 5.4.10 @ 10:24AM

One hole in the NEA's armor plate changing turnover policy is superficial. The kids won't gain any ground without the basic skills that our generation was FORCED to LEARN. removing cardboard cutouts from the classrooms is a start, but until the instruction departments of our school district administrations are gutted first, where's the upside? Nowhere so long as the student gets what the educrats wants him to have.

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.4.10 @ 10:25AM

I graduated Highschool 1964. Houston.

I had perhaps 20% competent teachers then.

Let's do a little poll and see if there are any graphs achievable.

L. Ross| 5.4.10 @ 11:47AM

You need a native english speaker to write your jokes for you. I will steal one of Eddie Murphy's jokes and show you how it is done.

A bear and a rabbit were pooping in the woods. The bear asks the rabbit if he has trouble with poop sticking to his fur. "No" says the rabbit. So the bear wipes his butt with the rabbit.

L. Ross| 5.4.10 @ 11:49AM

Sorry about the Texican. This comment was targeted at a joke/advertisement which has been removed. It got tacked on to your thread. My appologies.

Art| 5.5.10 @ 7:54AM

Somehow it still makes sense...

Clinton nee Publius| 5.4.10 @ 4:15PM

The reality is that public education has failed as completely as all other liberal social welfare programs have failed and now we have to deal with the reality that government-controlled, public education is not a sustainable proposition and must be completely dismantled.

Here are the facts:

(1) Real spending (inflation adjusted) on primary and secondary school tuition increased by 247% between 1963 and 2006. There has not been a 247% increase in test scores, literacy rates or college placements. Only drop-out rates, illiteracy rates, teen pregnancy rates and union pension plan contributions continue to increase.

(2) Today, the average primary and secondary public school education tuition is double the average private school tuition and more than triple the average parochial school tuition, yet you would be very hard-pressed to find a parent that would prefer to send their child to a public school if a private school was at hand and money were not the issue. Public education is not even affordable.

(3) As long as education is controlled by government, the outcome will always be the lowest common denominator because government is constrained from following the dictates of Rational Choice Theory; liberals can teach it, but they never acknowledge its impact and that is why public education fails.

The reality is that we are now faced with the privatization of education so that we can increase quality and reduce cost while increasing wage opportunities for education workers. Once education workers have to compete like everyone else, the cream will rise to the top and those people who shouldn't be education workers can retire back to their former employment as the Assistant Night Shift Grill Manager at McDonald's.

Here's the kicker; you can overhaul education and make it even more affordable, flooding our markets with health care professionals by reducing the cost of a medical education to approximately $1,500 a year. Once you eliminate the cost barrier, medical services educations will become very attractive and the cost of health care comes down like magic.

The smartest people aren't in education, but need to be there.

DatsunMark| 5.4.10 @ 8:51PM

The Public School System is sytemetically corrupt and can not be reformed. Look at the Detroit School System...any hope there will be better teachers and a balanced budget? Here is the solution: have the courage to shut it down. Tell the parents there will be charter schools next year and the NEA can take a flying leap at a rolling donut.

PolishKnight| 5.5.10 @ 12:59PM

"The use of reverse seniority, as with much of teacher compensation, was borrowed from other sectors (in this case, industrial factories) to protect women from unfair dismissals. "

This ties in neatly how the problems of conservatism (and society in general) can be linked with an acceptance of the basic premise of the feminist movement:That women are entitled to high paying jobs just as much as men, if not moreso, even as they continue to be treated with chivalrous patronage.

In the past, when men were protected from layoffs it because their incomes were often the primary for a (two parent) family and a man losing his job while his wife retaining it would be destructive.

Feminists were aware of this reality and sought to address it by claiming that after enough women had high paying jobs, that the stigma of men being viewed as losers if they didn't earn as much of their wives would diminish in a post-feminist era. Howz that working out?

Back to teaching: The notion that teachers have a "special" job and should be immune from layoffs and market forces is insulting to other professions. Is a man who works as a plumber or construction worker who faces layoffs doing less important of a job in keeping a roof over the heads of children and clean running water?

fsdjk| 7.1.10 @ 2:31AM

beijing massage