Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Stuart Buck
Recent Activity
-
Stuart commented on the article |Perhaps not just the Fair Labor Standards Act, but other labor law as well does limit employers ability to fire anyone at any time for any reason . . . enough said about that.
This is still wrong. You're still implying that the FLSA provides job security (which is simply false). And "other labor law" doesn't apply unless it's a unionized workplace. In every other workplace, the usual standard is indeed employment at will. That is the law in every state except Montana.
For a job that is chronically underpaid, over-scrutinized, and damn hard, even in the "easiest" schools, a bit of job security is not unreasonable.
Sure, let's have "a bit" of job security, rather than lifetime protection for the many incompetent or even criminal teachers described in the LA Times article.
Some are outstanding, most are good enough, and a few are poor . . . but isn't that true with any profession from rocket scientists to ditch diggers?
OK. But if only a few principals are doing poorly, then why is near-absolute lifetime tenure needed for all teachers? Why would they need to be so afraid of the many "outstanding" or "good enough" principals? -
Stuart commented on the article |
And to explain, my initial reaction to your post was curiosity, because whenever tenure comes up, there's always someone who chimes in with the fear that if not for tenure, principals would be arbitrarily firing teachers left and right. So I'm wondering: Out of the 94,000 or so public schools in the United States, how many have principals that are really likely to try to fire the good teachers rather than the incompetent ones?
But then again, maybe the answer would be: a lot. I don't know. I'm reminded of the "Peter Principle." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle -
Stuart commented on the article |
The Fair Labor Standards Act has to do with minimum wage, overtime, and the like. It does not provide tenure or job security in any way whatsoever.
I was looking through the comments on the LA Times story. One commenter said this:
QUOTE: "29. Sadly, while there are incompetent teacher, administrations are filled with as many or more incompetent leaders. Many people that cannot teach climb the ladder of education and quickly get out of the classroom into a "safe place'' where they can still make money in education but not deal with students. These are the people that make "policies" that ruin California education. They continue to climb the ladder formulating ideas that now are impacting the direction we are going that are so wrong headed as to make teaching almost a nightmare for many good teachers."
Would you agree with that? It has a ring of plausibility. Maybe principals are indeed less capable than teachers, on average. In fact, maybe they're the ones who should be first to be fired! I don't know. -
Stuart commented on the article |
Why do some teachers seem to think that all administrators are desperately longing for the chance to arbitrarily fire good teachers for no reason?
But I would like to know of other professions that require a three-year probationary period during which time at the end of any contract year
My question is the opposite: I'd like to know of other professions that have tenure in any shape or form. All the jobs I've ever had have been employment at will . . . which means the employer can fire you at any time for any reason. -
Stuart commented on the article |
Well, how about a 5-year probationary period before tenure is granted? (You could come up with many different options by choosing different time periods there.) How about requiring some standard of proof that is lower than what is described in the LA Times article? In other words, firing a teacher for being incompetent or having drugs in the classroom or whatever shouldn't require a level of proof that seems to be based on what the justice system requires before sentencing someone to death.
Lots of different possibilities. Doesn't have to be all or nothing. -
Stuart commented on the article |
1. With due respect, I don't think the original post gave sufficient weight to the many horror stories described in the LA Times article, and that are the result of a system in which employees can retain job security despite the most egregious malfeasance or incompetence.
2. The alternative to total job security for everyone isn't "eliminating job security" altogether. There are plenty of ways to make it easier to fire stupid and incompetent people without going to that extreme.
3. Why do you think reducing job security would drive the "best employees" out of the profession? The most obvious effect would be precisely the opposite: getting rid of the bad apples. And it seems intuitively obvious that it would be incompetent people who get the most benefit from a system of total job security, and who would therefore value that system the most highly. Star teachers are more likely to be confident in their abilities.
-
Stuart commented on the article |
OK, the quote didn't work. All of the following is a quote from the (much longer) LA Times story:
QUOTE: District officials thought they had a strong case against fourth-grade teacher Shirley Loftis, including complaints and other evidence they said dated back a decade. According to their allegations before the commission, Loftis, 74, failed to give directions to students, assigned homework that wasn't at the appropriate grade level and provided such inadequate supervision that students pulled down their pants or harmed one another by fighting or throwing things. One child allegedly broke a tooth, another was hit in the head after being pushed off a chair, a third struck by a backpack.
The commission, however, sided with Loftis. It acknowledged that she showed signs of burnout and "would often retreat from student relationship problems rather than confront them."
But it said the district did not try hard enough to help her and suggested administrators find her another job -- perhaps training other teachers. -
Stuart commented on the article |
So what do you say to stories like this? http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teachers3-2009may03,0,5765040,full.story
There is lots and lots of data there: not just assertions and assumptions.
Far from the worst example: District officials thought they had a strong case against fourth-grade teacher Shirley Loftis, including complaints and other evidence they said dated back a decade.
According to their allegations before the commission, Loftis, 74, failed to give directions to students, assigned homework that wasn't at the appropriate grade level and provided such inadequate supervision that students pulled down their pants or harmed one another by fighting or throwing things. One child allegedly broke a tooth, another was hit in the head after being pushed off a chair, a third struck by a backpack.
The commission, however, sided with Loftis. It acknowledged that she showed signs of burnout and "would often retreat from student relationship problems rather than confront them."
But it said the district did not try hard enough to help her and suggested administrators find her another job -- perhaps training other teachers.</blockquote> -
Stuart commented on the article |Sorry, I said "ill-informed," but that's too harsh. I just mean "unconvincing" given a simple eyeballing on my part.
-
Stuart commented on the article |
The high-stakes testing regime of NCLB has generated account after account of schools narrowing curriculum in order to focus on test-taking skills and knowing (or correctly guessing) the right answer on state tests. It's no surprise that this would produce low scores on the PISA test (which is unrelated to NCLB). PISA, as the report states, tests "real-world" application of mathematical and scientific thinking. NCLB test-prep sessions focus on the opposite of applied knowledge. I'd love to see a breakdown of how schools that performed well on NCLB-mandated state tests performed on PISA. My hunch is we'd see a picture of schools great at finding the right bubble, but horrible at applying learning and solving real-world problems.
Is there any genuine evidence for anything in the above? The contrast between PISA and NCLB testing seems particularly ill-informed, for example . . . . if you take a look at the PISA sample questions, such as this one http://pisa-sq.acer.edu.au/showQuestion.php?testId=2292&questionId=2 , you'll find that they are very similar to NCLB tests (at least the benchmark tests in my state). In that link, for example, children are asked a multiple choice question about the intention behind a particular argument . . . and my state's benchmark testing asks exactly the same sort of question.
The sample PISA math questions are "real world" mainly in the sense that many of them are story problems. And it's unclear why, for example, American children who learn how to figure out the area of a circle for an NCLB test would somehow be disadvantaged when asked a PISA question that involves the area of a circle. The main difference would be that the PISA test more often asks students to show their work . . . which is certainly more difficult, but not in a way that would be appropriate to describe as "opposite" to other tests.
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits