Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/04/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Unless Calf. is different from the real world then this is incorrect. IF the teacher is truly incompetent then it takes about half a year to remove them. A teacher can usually be removed upon a second evaluation which shows that the defect noted on the previous evaluation has not be corrected. It only takes a long time and thousands of $ if the administrator and not done their job. Simply- all they have to do is note a deficiency, tell how it cam be corrected and then follow-up to see if it has. Of course there must actually be DOCUMENTED deficiency and the correction step must be clearly delineated and include how it will be determined if correction has been made. This is not difficult to do if there is in fact a deficiency. It does take some time to document it all, but that is what the administrator's job is. The cases you see being dragged out in court may well be those in which an unjustified dismissal took place. As far as a teacher's privacy goes, there is none. All record pertaining to public employees are public records. All a person who wished to see my personnel record needs to do is ask, and pay a small fee for duplication of those records. This is my third posting on this off-topic topic. It is also my last. Ken Wilcox At 2:26 PM -0700 4/29/02, Adam Bridge wrote: >On 4/29/02 Ken Wilcox wrote: > >>Your are talking nonsense! Tenure laws do not protect incompetent >>teachers! Tenured teacher can be and are removed easily under the >>law. Tenure only protects them from dismissal without cause. The >>process is simple. a teacher receives notice of a deficiency in the >>performance of their duties. They are given specific step which must >>be taken to correct the deficiency. If they fail to do so they can be >>dismissed. >> >>There are administrators that complain that tenure protects bad >>teachers. Not true! This is simply and excuse used by poor >>administrators. Tenure was intended, and is usualy sucessful in >>reducing the politics of hiring and firing. It allows teacher to do >>the job of teaching without the necessity of grandstanding to keep >>their jobs. > >Ken I really have to disagree with you on this one. > >I'd first suggest that tenure is outdated given the current state of >employment >law. > >To remove a tenured teacher takes years and hundreds of thousands of dollars. >Why? Because the school district pays not only their own lawyers but the >teacher's as well! Certainly this is true in California and is >probably true in >other places. > >Teaching is one of the few professions where it is very very >difficult to fire a >person once tenure has been established -- often in as few as two years. > >Tendure DOES protect bad teachers because the labor required to remove them is >more than most site administrators can afford. To suggest otherwise is a flat >out misrepresentation of the facts. I wish this were not the case but it most >certainly is. > >I've watched the process happen, or attempt to happen. The union gets involved >of course which further polarizes the process. > >Tenure may have been great and needed when teachers will little ol' >school marms >but today's body of employment law covers teachers as well and prevents >capricious administrators and boards of education from firing willy-nilly. It >doesn't prevent teachers from claiming they were treated poorly while still >given due process in an environment designed to protect their privacy. > >So give the indignant cries a bit of a rest. The reality is tenure gives the >incompetent a free ride while protecting darn few, IF ANY, who >otherwise aren't >protected at all. > >Adam Bridge >-- >To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- _____________________ Ken Wilcox klw.51 at comcast.net - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html