
California Teacher Tenure Laws Ruled Unconstitutional - _pius
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/us/california-teacher-tenure-laws-ruled-unconstitutional.html?emc=edit_na_20140610&nlid=58032267&_r=0&referrer=
======
steven777400
Tenure makes a lot of sense for research university positions. Research can
take a long time to be fruitful, and many avenues of research won't pan out at
all. Tenure helps enable researchers to focus on various problems instead of
being stuck to what will have the most payout in the shortest term.

It's never been quite clear to me why tenure makes sense for instructor
positions, either at the college or pre-college level. I say this as someone
who was a tenured instructor at a community college for a number of years.

~~~
opendais
It is because of bullshit like this:
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-207079/Evolution-
ban...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-207079/Evolution-banned-US-
schools.html)

"The word "evolution" will be removed from school books in the deep south of
the United States under a new proposal."

How much do you want to bet violating such a ban would lead to _immediate_
dismissal without tenure protections?

This is a school administrator that tried to get such a ban passed.

EDIT: Since there seems to be some confusion, I've italicized the word
immediate since people seem to think it was irrelevant.

~~~
dlss
I think the courts are a better solution for that problem.

Having a couple "crazy science teachers" with tenure shouldn't even count as a
solution IMO - especially if that causes people to be more careful about who
they give tenure to...

EDIT: I said "better solution" not "perfect solution". I would love if you
speculate about what a perfect solution is though!

~~~
joeclark77
The courts? Have a judge pick the textbook? I can't think of anything that
could possibly go wrong.

School choice is the solution. Let parents hold the schools accountable,
because they're the only ones (apparently) who put the kids' education ahead
of political pet causes.

~~~
rrss1122
That's why lawmakers often want a voucher system, to give the lower income
students the power of school choice.

~~~
joeclark77
You don't have to sell me on the idea, brother, I've been supporting vouchers
since I heard of them. I think you're overly optimistic that there are
"lawmakers" on our side, though. Even those from the ostensibly free-market
party, when they get into power, rarely support programs that would reduce
their own sphere of influence. It's hard to get re-elected by saying "Look
what I _didn 't_ do for you."

~~~
opendais
School choice only works if it is enough to cover all the external costs as
well as all the tuition at a private school.

No lawmaker and few citizens are willing to pay for that. ;)

~~~
glenra
The average private school costs quite a lot less than the average public
school. You could spend about half as much per student and still get safer
kids and happier parents.

So what "external costs" are you thinking of? Going to a private school does
involve travel, but so does going to your assigned public school. Depending on
how the district lines are drawn and how centralized the district is, the trip
might even be shorter.

~~~
opendais
Source?

When my ex girlfriend was shopping around for a private school the private
schools in the area were both:

A) More expensive (by about $3-5k/year) than what the local district spends.

B) Were generally further and didn't provide a bus to pick the kids/drop them
off at that distance.

~~~
glenra
Did you consider religious schools? Catholic schools are ubiquitous and tend
to dramatically pull down the average.

According to stats collected at
[http://www.edreform.com/2012/04/k-12-facts/](http://www.edreform.com/2012/04/k-12-facts/)
:

AVERAGE DISTRICT PUBLIC SCHOOL PER PUPIL EXPENDITURE: $13,041

AVERAGE PRIVATE SCHOOL TUITION: $8,549

AVERAGE CATHOLIC SCHOOL TUITION: $6,018

~~~
opendais
I'm uncertain why you expect anyone to send people to Catholic schools
"because cheaper"?

Not everyone is Catholic.

~~~
glenra
>I'm uncertain why you expect anyone to send people to Catholic schools
"because cheaper"?

Cheaper, better, and/or safer, yes. Sometimes it's the best available option.

> Not everyone is Catholic.

Sure, but not everyone who attends Catholic schools is Catholic. Lots of Jews,
atheists, and agnostics attend Catholic schools. How difficult that is to do
depends on the school. In general, yes, the schools will be teaching some
stuff your family doesn't believe...but that'd be true for public schools too,
no matter what your beliefs are. Heck, having the irrationality in the
curriculum be _so_ blatant might produce more healthy skepticism in the kids
than when the irrationality takes the more subtle forms it does in public
schools!

~~~
opendais
It seems your motivations are primarily religious so I'm bowing out of this
conversation.

~~~
glenra
I'm an atheist, FWIW. Perhaps I did a bad job of correcting you when you kept
jumping to conclusions above, but whatever my motivations are doesn't change
the fact that the average private school costs less than the average public
one. :-)

~~~
opendais
You ignore a bunch of things in your process and generally use misleading
numbers that fit your worldview.

------
jack-r-abbit
> _But lawyers for the states and teachers’ unions said that overturning such
> laws would erode necessary protections that stop school administrators from
> making unfair personnel decisions._

> _Administrators seeking to dismiss a teacher they deem incompetent must
> follow a complicated procedure that typically drags on for months, if not
> years._

Wait... why should they get more job protection than the vast majority of all
other workers? I don't think they need any special treatment beyond what every
other person with a job has.

~~~
GauntletWizard
Teachers union advocates will tell you that it's a way of convincing people to
become teachers, as the job has far more stability. Reality shows that it just
discourages new teachers, as nearly half of all new teachers last less than
five years[1]. Teaching has become an outdated, slow-moving profession that
nobody wants to join because of the entrenched interests and bloated
bureaucracies.

1: [http://nctaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/supply-demand-
st...](http://nctaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/supply-demand-
standards.pdf)

~~~
x0x0
Or, at least in CA, teachers leave because they grow up and need a real job;
one that might pay them enough to afford to live in the communities they work
in. If you'd like to live in the valley and teach, you better marry well. You
can see some of the salaries here [1]; $71k for Belmont means give up any
dream of owning a home.

[1] [http://belmont-ca.patch.com/groups/schools/p/comparing-
the-s...](http://belmont-ca.patch.com/groups/schools/p/comparing-the-salaries-
of-peninsula-teachers-a2765213)

~~~
refurb
By that logic, if a teacher is teaching in Manhattan they should be paid
enough to afford a house in Manhattan as well?

------
itbeho
_Under state law here, teachers are eligible for tenure after 18 months..._

18 months!?! Something is seriously out of whack with employment in education
here in California..

~~~
sliverstorm
If my memory of tenure is correct, "eligible" is not the same as "gets".
Limited number of tenure slots available, the same way you may not be promoted
in the private sector because there aren't enough slots in the next grade.

------
eruditely
In California, teachers do a lot of under-handed lw brainwashing of their
kids, at least at the high school I went to in the south bay in NorCal. We
would always get told pro union agenda's and I to me as a kid(I am just 21
now), all that meant to me was "My nice teachers are getting hurt by X, X is
evil!" or at least it seemed to me. I was never aware that some of it was
sometimes underhanded union distortion.

Note I have not implied pro/against for any issue. Just when I was made aware
of this agenda which I thought was decentralized agony, it shocked me.

~~~
yellowapple
I grew up in NorCal, too; that was the opposite impression I got. Most of the
teachers I had were relatively young, and hadn't been teaching for a very long
time; my conversations with them - especially in high school - frequently
included mentions of how often they'd be pink-slipped because the teachers'
union - dominated by veteran, tenured teachers - would elect for pay raises
instead of hiring more teachers. This meant growing class sizes, and the
veteran teachers _knew it_.

We were certainly taught about the environment, how biodiversity is a good
thing, etc., but I was hard-pressed to find a teacher that actually agreed
with the teachers' union, and unions in general were typically portrayed in a
neutral light at best.

~~~
eruditely
I guess my perception is somewhat malformed due to memories, but your
experiences line up with mine. I guess the f(x)(explanation) for the x I gave
was incorrect.

I do remember a lot of my teachers being pink slipped, but I also do remember
all the strikes, all the specific agenda pushing. It was covert in the sense
that young kids do not have such sharp anti-manipulation senses formed.

------
ColinDabritz
Teacher Tenure is important for similar reasons as lifetime appointments for
judges, especially on the academic research side. It certainly has some trade
offs, but it protects our freedoms of expression, speech, and thought in a
very fundamental way.

Teachers and researchers need to be free from some influences to be able to
teach and research unpopular subjects and views. Consider communist teachings
during the "red scare" as a relatively recent example.

"Faculty Tenure in Academe: The Evolution, Benefits and Implications of an
Important Tradition"

[http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/lh62/Cameron...](http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/lh62/CameronJoSA_.pdf)

------
parker94
If you've ever watched the documentary "Waiting for Superman" you'll see
exactly why tenure shouldn't be allowed in public schools.

------
jongraehl
If teaching in California public schools is messed up, what U.S. state is good
for teachers?

~~~
eastbayjake
Former Mississippi high school science teacher here.

New Hampshire seems great -- affluent state with high quality of life,
relatively high teacher pay, educated population, lots of small and
culturally-homogenous communities. (Multicultural education in poor areas is a
noble and worthy challenge, but it's ridiculously stressful and often
demoralizing. I think teaching a chemistry class in a 99% African-American
public high school in Mississippi does more good for society, but the
chemistry teacher in an affluent district in New Hampshire is probably less
stressed about student achievement and job security.)

If thick New England accents and bone-biting winters aren't your bag, Colorado
has similar advantages (affluence, high quality of life, educated population)
but a more diverse population, more notoriety for education innovation, and
more opportunities to serve traditionally underserved communities.

PS - I took this question's "good for teachers" to mean "enjoying your
profession" and not "do as little work as possible for as much money as
possible." If you meant the latter, the answer is "The Bronx".

------
VikingCoder
I wonder when the Supreme Court will rule that life tenure for the Supreme
Court justices deprives citizens of their right to justice under the
Constitution of the United States of America.

Substantial evidence can be presented that make it clear that the life term of
Justices disproportionately affects young, poor, minority, and / or
technologically-minded citizens. The evidence is compelling. Indeed, it shocks
the conscience.

~~~
datapolitical
One of the beautiful pieces of the Constitution is that it's allowed to
contradict itself. The more specific statement wins out (for example, a
section banning gay marriage would beat out a section that said that all
people were guaranteed equal rights)

~~~
VikingCoder
And the most beautiful part of the Constitution is the checks and balances.
For instance, the Executive branch is supposed to enforce laws from the most
generic to the most specific, as you've indicated. However the Supreme Court
Justices are supposed to use their brains, and realize that a law banning gay
marriage, written into the Constitution or not, is inherently unconstitutional
because the Equal Protection Clause takes precedent.

