Daily Beast/Vergara v. California: The Most Important Court Case You’ve Never Heard Of

[NoCalMike]

Firing bad teachers and keeping tenure for good ones shouldn't be mutually exclusive.  Not sure why it has to be an either/or.  Why not streamline the process for letting go bad teachers while keeping and/or strengthening salaries/benefits/tenure for the good ones?

[DCSaints_fan]

Firing bad teachers and keeping tenure for good ones shouldn't be mutually exclusive.  Not sure why it has to be an either/or.  Why not streamline the process for letting go bad teachers while keeping and/or strengthening salaries/benefits/tenure for the good ones?

 

You can't "keep tenure for good teachers" ... either you have tenure, or you don't.   A "bad teacher" may have been good at one point, but simply gotten burnt out and started mailing it in.

[Slateman]

Vergara in a headline and it's not Sofia?

 

Disappointing...

Agreed

 

News flash. Our schools suck.

But let's implement things that ensure they all suck the same

Perhaps one of the reasons our schools suck is because teachers who suck cannot be removed.

 

Replace the word "excellent" in my prior post with competent and the point still stands. And for many, perhaps most the "not chicken feed" salary wouldn't be worth the headache, certainly not over the long term anyway.

Very good point as well. However, I would argue that one of the first steps towards increasing salaries would be establishing who deserves an increase in pay.

 

You can't "keep tenure for good teachers" ... either you have tenure, or you don't.   A "bad teacher" may have been good at one point, but simply gotten burnt out and started mailing it in.

Very true, but what happens in any other performance based job when someone decides to start "mailing it in?" Usually they get fired.

[twa]

Tenure is not the real problem(though attaining it in only 2 yrs certainly contributes)

The problem is dumping the demonstratively lousy teachers into schools already facing enough obstacles.

[The Sisko]

While I don't have a problem with firing substandard teachers, I think in many ways this legislation will do little to address the problem and even worse is a distractor from the real issues, i.e. under-resourcing of education and inadequacy of elected school boards among other things. So please explain how firing incompetent teacher A insures that average or above average teacher B will be incentivized to work for less pay in poorer districts than they could get elsewhere. What's more likely to result from this is that incompetent teacher A is replaced with incompetent teachers B, C, D, E, F, etc. with an average teacher thrown in between for a year or so when they're new and need experience or can't find a job in the district they want. Trust me, I see this story play out every year with state employees that I work with. My state does an excellent job of holding salaries down for state employees and providing crappy benefits. As a result, we get the good ones for about a year and right about the time they start to get their feet under them and become productive, they get a "real" job and they're gone. I'm a perfect example. I spent about a year and a half in the system, got some experience then left and increased my salary by 40% doing the same job I had been doing while employed by the state.
 
Going back to the issue of who will replace those fired, I think the following supports my prior statement that the teacher "shortage" is similar to the so-called nursing shortage, i.e. it's not an issue of supply but rather of attrition. Until the pay, workload, management policies, student behavior and other working conditions improve at substandard schools, there's not really much chance of them making significant gains. What's more likely to result from this is that higher performing schools will be able to more quickly get rid of substandard teachers who will be replaced by the better teachers from underperforming schools. The underperforming schools will be able to fire their poor teachers as well but will have a harder time replacing them. In other words, I think it will facilitate a brain drain from the underperforming schools. Outside of twa and the Tea Klan I don't think anyone sees that as a win.
 

https://www.csun.edu/science/courses/710/bibliography/math%20science%20shortage%20paper%20march%202009%20final.pdf

However, a different picture emerges when we include preretirement losses of teachers—

a figure that is many times larger than losses due to retirement and a primary factor driving 

demand for new hires. Mathematics and science teachers have about the same annual rates of 

turnover as other teachers. But unlike, for instance, the case of English teachers, the educational 

system does not enjoy an overwhelming surplus of new mathematics and science teachers 

relative to total turnover. For the field of English, the supply of new teachers from the pipeline 

and the reserve pool is more than sufficient to replace all losses, due to either retirement or other 

reasons. For mathematics and science, there is a much tighter balance between the new teacher 

supply and total turnover, including both retirement and other reasons. The supply of new 

teachers from the pipeline and the reserve pool is barely sufficient, with just over one new 

mathematics or science teacher for each mathematics or science teacher who leaves teaching.

 

The data also show teacher turnover is not evenly distributed. There are large variations 

in turnover within states and large school-to-school differences in turnover. Moreover, these 

differences are tied to the attractiveness of the working conditions in schools. [--my empasis added] While less than a  quarter of all mathematics and science teachers who left teaching at the end of the 1999-2000 year did so because of retirement, about half of their attrition was tied to job dissatisfaction. The 

data show that replacing attrition losses linked to job dissatisfaction accounted for 98% of the 

new mathematics teachers and 74% of the new science teachers in the pipeline in 1999-2000. In 

other words, demand for new math and science hires and attendant staffing problems are largely 

a result of preretirement turnover, and a significant portion of the latter is driven by job 

dissatisfaction. 

 

 

 

 

 

[endzone_dave]

If I'm a good teacher, why would I want to teach in a school that has metal detectors at the door?  I'm going to a nice area where the kids want to learn, not stab each other.

 

Parenting has everything to do with how well kids are educated.  A graduation rate of only 50% or 60% isn't an indication of bad teachers, it's an indication of bad parents.

[PeterMP]

The judge struck down CA's tenure laws/policies in order to allow the firing of bad teachers:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/10/justice/california-teacher-tenure-lawsuit/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[twa]

What legislation are you referring to Yusuf?

 

 

 

If I'm a good teacher, why would I want to teach in a school that has metal detectors at the door?  I'm going to a nice area where the kids want to learn, not stab each other.

 

Parenting has everything to do with how well kids are educated.  A graduation rate of only 50% or 60% isn't an indication of bad teachers, it's an indication of bad parents.

 

because you care  ....and that is where the job opening is

I certainly agree parenting is a very large part,but it does not excuse incompetent teachers not being replaced IF POSSIBLE.

 

if ya'll wish to surrender and wash your hands of these kids ya need to at least remove the law requiring quality education for all.

[The Sisko]

I wrote legislation when I meant to say ruling. So far, I think you're the only person who has said anything about surrendering and washing hands of kids and if there is such a law requiring quality education for all on the books, far too many places are in violation for a variety of reasons. I'd like to see those root-cause issues addressed rather than political stunts like this that will ultimately do little to help anything and may in fact, make things worse. But who cares if a few kids get an even worse education, as long as it furthers MY political agenda.

[twa]

I wrote legislation when I meant to say ruling. So far, I think you're the only person who has said anything about surrendering and washing hands of kids and if there is such a law requiring quality education for all on the books, far too many places are in violation for a variety of reasons. I'd like to see those root-cause issues addressed rather than political stunts like this that will ultimately do little to help anything and may in fact, make things worse. But who cares if a few kids get an even worse education, as long as it furthers MY political agenda.

 

Yet you are perfectly fine deflecting from causes the judge ruled obvious ones.

I find it hard to believe you don't know the law requires it,most states do....Cali is even in the constitution.

 

EXACTLY who is going to get a worse education by this ruling and why?

[The Evil Genius]

My question is - will people less likely become teachers in California because job security is no longer a perk to make up for the long hours, underpayment, and lack of respect from both parents and kids?

[Larry]

My question is - will people less likely become teachers in California because job security is no longer a perk to make up for the long hours, underpayment, and lack of respect from both parents and kids?

My assumption is that very few people go into teaching for the money. That's why they're so under paid, to begin with.

It seems to be one of those jobs, like cop or firefighter, where society doesn't have to offer much money, people just want that job, anyway.

Which doesn't mean it won't be a factor for many people.

Maybe the unions will be able to negotiate something else, to make up for what they lost. Better pay or benefits?

[twa]

My question is - will people less likely become teachers in California because job security is no longer a perk to make up for the long hours, underpayment, and lack of respect from both parents and kids?

 

That is a good question, but job security is not going to disappear....ESPECIALLY if the need for teachers is there

 

or are they just wanting a position and paycheck?

 

pissing on the kids heads is not a solution

[The Evil Genius]

My assumption is that very few people go into teaching for the money. That's why they're so under paid, to begin with.

It seems to be one of those jobs, like cop or firefighter, where society doesn't have to offer much money, people just want that job, anyway.

Which doesn't mean it won't be a factor for many people.

Maybe the unions will be able to negotiate something else, to make up for what they lost. Better pay or benefits?

 

Hard to do in California when the majority of any increases in public education funding won't be from property taxes increasing with inflation.

 

That's one of the handicaps that this state has - I don't think they can't fund public education like the majority of the other states do. 

 

If the best applicants no longer go into teaching because they don't care for being criminally underpaid and being crapped on by parents and kids and now fired at the whim of an administrator for someone who is younger and cheaper - then what's the good of this ruling?

[codeorama]

I could go on forever regarding what's wrong with schools. I've got 15 minutes. Lets see:

 

I've taught high school at 2 different schools. One was an economically poor school, the current school, the kids have significantly more money.

The first school sucked.  The students were kids who's parents were kids.  They were lost. The parents were off who knows where while grandparents were trying to raise them.  55% of the students lived below the poverty level.  The current school I teach at has 2% of that demographic.  

In each class at the first school, I'd have 2-3 really good students.  In this current school, I have 1-2 really bad students per class. Parent participation is much better, but still not great.

 

What sucks about being a teacher is that they pay is not great.  I will be the first to say that there are some really good teachers and really bad ones.  If they ever raised the pay for teachers, lets say to a starting pay of 50K as opposed to 39K now, there would be a significant increase in better teachers.  In order to be a teacher now, you have to know you are going to be poor and you have to be able to deal with bad kids with little help.  

 

If they can't increase our pay, make it so we don't have to pay back our student loans (completely, not just a portion), make us exempt from federal and state taxes.  As it is, I have to buy my own school supplies anyway.

 

The bad part is that they cannot really figure out a way to reward the good teachers because how do you judge it?  At my first school, I was an OK teacher because my scores were decent and the kids liked me. Now, I"m the king of the school because my scores are off the charts and the kids love me.  I'm the same teacher. The kids are different.  It's not fair to compare one school to another.

 

At this school, I'd get merit increases if they existed.  At the old school, I would not (no one would).

Here is what I hate more than anything.

 

My school district is corrupt.  For the past 6 years, our enrollment is declining.  Therefore teaching positions have been cut.  However, ADMIN downtown has grown.  More positions.  We teachers have not received a raise in 6 years.  We just found out that Admin downtown DID get secret raises. Huge amounts. They did this in order to keep the "directors of this and that" from leaving for other districts. One got 40K in addition to their already over 100K job.  Another even more.  What a joke.

We are top heavy. We are burdened with too much administration downtown that we do not need.

[Slateman]

 

My school district is corrupt.  For the past 6 years, our enrollment is declining.  Therefore teaching positions have been cut.  However, ADMIN downtown has grown.  More positions.  We teachers have not received a raise in 6 years.  We just found out that Admin downtown DID get secret raises. Huge amounts. They did this in order to keep the "directors of this and that" from leaving for other districts. One got 40K in addition to their already over 100K job.  Another even more.  What a joke.

We are top heavy. We are burdened with too much administration downtown that we do not need.

Another big one and it exists everywhere. Even in the "rich" places like Montgomery or Fairfax, you have a lot of "administrators" who make six figures but no one can figure out what they do.

[Zguy28]

If they can't increase our pay, make it so we don't have to pay back our student loans (completely, not just a portion), make us exempt from federal and state taxes.  As it is, I have to buy my own school supplies anyway.

 

What if they do a contract that you have to teach for 5 years in their district, in exchange for paying your tuition? If you break contract, you get to pay back the tuition. I've heard of that done in NC.

[codeorama]

What if they do a contract that you have to teach for 5 years in their district, in exchange for paying your tuition? If you break contract, you get to pay back the tuition. I've heard of that done in NC.

I'd do that in a second. I'm already about to receive a teacher forgiveness grant from the Fed. That helps, but I have a masters. You basically have to in order to teach.

Don't get me wrong. I LOVE teaching. I'm good at it. I relate to the students and the schedule fits with me being a single parent. But it's just messed up how we are crapped on.

[twa]

 

If the best applicants no longer go into teaching because they don't care for being criminally underpaid and being crapped on by parents and kids and now fired at the whim of an administrator for someone who is younger and cheaper - then what's the good of this ruling?

 

you don't think there is a balance to be found between tenure after 2 yrs and firing at a whim?

 

Maybe ya need better administrators

[Larry]

The bad part is that they cannot really figure out a way to reward the good teachers because how do you judge it?  At my first school, I was an OK teacher because my scores were decent and the kids liked me. Now, I"m the king of the school because my scores are off the charts and the kids love me.  I'm the same teacher. The kids are different.  It's not fair to compare one school to another.

That's one of the things I really wonder about, concerning this case.

They claim that the worst teachers were sent to the minority schools.

Were they? Or did the minority schools have lower test scores because minority schools always have lower test scores?

 

(Note:  If anybody can come up with some way to make it so that minority schools don't have lower scores, I'd love to hear it.) 

To me, it's part of the problem of judging teachers, by testing students.

 

(However, I am not going to jump out and just asset that what I've described, above, the "look!  The minority schools had lower scores!  This proves that the teachers were racist!" factor, actually happened.  I may wonder about it, but until I actually see somebody make that case, and credibly support it, I'm going to assume that both sides presented their arguments in court, and the prosecution supported their position.) 

 

[codeorama]

That's one of the things I really wonder about, concerning this case.

They claim that the worst teachers were sent to the minority schools.

Were they? Or did the minority schools have lower test scores because minority schools always have lower test scores?

(Note: If anybody can come up with some way to make it so that minority schools don't have lower scores, I'd love to hear it.)

To me, it's part of the problem of judging teachers, by testing students.

(However, I am not going to jump out and just asset that what I've described, above, the "look! The minority schools had lower scores! This proves that the teachers were racist!" factor, actually happened. I may wonder about it, but until I actually see somebody make that case, and credibly support it, I'm going to assume that both sides presented their arguments in court, and the prosecution supported their position.)

Great points.

I can only speak for my city, but, the minority schools have lower scores. Period. Just to use the high schools as an example: school 1 is 89% black, always has lowest overall scores, lowest AYP. ( this school however, has the most National Board certified teachers). As the percentage of white students goes up, the scores go up. The AYP goes up. We have 4 HS's. It's in order of minority population.

My current school is second "best" in terms of scores. One other school has slightly higher stats, but sometimes, my school ends up on top. The racial make up is close.

I am not saying black students are dumber or white students are smarter. I've had good and bad both ways, you really have to judge the individual students. However, just as a generalization based on my small experience, the white students tend to have parents with higher educations. You can clearly tell on back to school night at each school.

I feel so bad for so many of the students and the backgrounds they come from. It's crazy. I don't feel that our school systems are worse, society is going downhill. I mean in terms of education, which leads to money. Money is the ultimate issue. I try hard to teach my students that liking school isn't necessary. You have to get through it if you want money to get the things you want in life.

It's not fair to judge teachers at one school against teachers at another.

I would live to say that principals know which teachers are good and deserve merit raises, but that wouldn't work either. While the admin at my school is very good, others are not. I don't trust them to do the right thing.

Sad. I feel like we are re living the fall of Rome.

[Larry]

However, just as a generalization based on my small experience, the white students tend to have parents with higher educations. You can clearly tell on back to school night at each school.

I have noticed, for years now, a trend. I see a whole lot of white parents with black (or other minority) kids. (Well, white adult(s) and black kids.) I assume they're adopted. (But that's an assumption. Maybe they're simply taking care of the neighbor's kid, or something.)

Yes, I'm aware that I'm making a whole lot of assumptions, just from seeing a white adult, or couple, with one or two black kids, at a restaurant.

(And, frankly, it also bothers me that I notice these things. I'm rather ashamed that I notice. I hope that the people involved don;t see me doing a double take, or something equally offensive.)

but, assuming that what I'm seeing is a trend of white couples adopting black children, then I wonder who this trend is going to affect our society. If we have a large cohort of black children who have been raised by white parents.

Maybe we'll get lucky, and it will help reduce the racial nature of some of these stats. Sure would be nice.

[twa]

a fun experiment would be for schools to swap teachers for a year

 

expert testimony from the case

http://vimeo.com/85786192

[codeorama]

a fun experiment would be for schools to swap teachers for a year

expert testimony from the case

http://vimeo.com/85786192

The teachers from the minority schools would end up better IMO.

When you teach at a minority school, you have to work crazy hard to get reasonable results. That's what I did. When I moved to a better school, I was all of a sudden this amazing teacher. I was the same. The issue is that the students are "better" and require less on my end. But I give them the same effort I gave at the other school. Scores go up. I also noticed that the average teacher in this "better" school honestly sucked. They give worksheets, they don't teach. They are lucky that they have the students that they have and they don't even realize it. They complain about how bad the students are. If those teachers had to move to the school I started out at, they would quit.

[twa]

I agree with ya, but I do think Cali was shuttling teachers that could not cut it in the 'better' schools to the 'worse' ones

in effect kneecapping the handicapped