

Getting rid of bad teachers - cwan
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/getting-rid-of-bad-teachers/

======
minouye
This American Life did an excellent piece of "Rubber Rooms" (mentioned in this
blog post). It's quite an eye opener to the sorry state of the NYC public
education system:

[http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=128...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1286)
(see act one)

Let me also qualify this by saying I have the utmost respect for educators
there. I have a close friend that teaches 4th grade in Harlem--some of her
stories are pretty unbelievable.

------
dpatru
I don't understand why public employees are allowed to unionize. If the public
does not have a choice whether to pay your salary, then at least the public's
representatives should have the right to easily fire you.

~~~
Afton
I'm pretty sure that position, if fleshed out, would seem crazy to me. Can you
try and flesh it out?

Basically, I don't see how being employed by 'the public' means that contracts
that you agreed to and signed can be ripped up at will by the other party.

Don't get me wrong, I think there is something wrong with the situation NYC
finds itself in, but this anti-union response seems like a non-sequitor.

~~~
anamax
> Basically, I don't see how being employed by 'the public' means that
> contracts that you agreed to and signed can be ripped up at will by the
> other party.

Because "the public" can't take their money elsewhere if it doesn't like the
decisions made by management. And, public employee unions can drive tax
dollars into their members pockets.

If Ford makes crap, for whatever reason, I can take my money elsewhere, so I
don't care what stupidity it engages in.

~~~
Afton
Ok. So you _do_ think that being employed by 'the public' means that you
shouldn't have the protection of a contract? That is, if you sign a contract,
and you are a public employee, that contract should be worthless in asserting
your rights under the contract?

And this: > And, public employee unions can drive tax dollars into their
members pockets.

Makes no sense to me at all. Of course they can. That's kind of their
purpose...

~~~
anamax
> Ok. So you do think that being employed by 'the public' means that you
> shouldn't have the protection of a contract?

No, but thanks for raising a strawman.

As I wrote, I think that public employee contracts should be limited in ways
that private employee contracts aren't limited.

> Makes no sense to me at all. Of course they can. That's kind of their
> purpose...

I agree that that's their purpose. As a member of the public I object. Ford
can't get my money without my agreement. Since govt can, I want different
rules.

And, if someone doesn't like those terms, they're free to find an employer
that has the terms that they do like. As long as tax money isn't involved, I
don't care.

~~~
Afton
Hardly a strawman

>> Basically, I don't see how being employed by 'the public' means that
contracts that you agreed to and signed can be ripped up at will by the other
party. >Because "the public" can't take their money elsewhere if it doesn't
like the decisions made by management.

I also don't see where you are referring to when you say > As I wrote, I think
that public employee contracts should be limited in ways that private employee
contracts aren't limited.

In any event I find it hard to grasp your position. You don't think that being
employed by the government means that you shouldn't have the protection of a
contract, and you do think that public employee contracts should be limited in
ways that private employee contracts aren't.

~~~
anamax
> In any event I find it hard to grasp your position. You don't think that
> being employed by the government means that you shouldn't have the
> protection of a contract, and you do think that public employee contracts
> should be limited in ways that private employee contracts aren't.

It's quite easy to grasp. I think that public employee contracts shouldn't
have certain provisions.

The "right" to a contract does not imply the right to any possible contract.
We already restrict private employee contracts - I'm just saying that there
should be somewhat different restrictions on public employee contracts. Folks
who object to the restrictions specific to public employee contracts are free
to seek private employee contracts more to their liking.

------
gamble
Few districts are going to hire a teacher that's been laid off for poor
performance, so if you fire a teacher you've essentially ended their career
and kicked them to the curb with a worthless degree, no experience outside
academia, and no skills that transfer to other jobs. Firing is serious
business, and it's not surprising to me that districts are reluctant to resort
to the nuclear option or that teachers fight so hard to prevent it.

