[quote=CA renter]AN, since you seem to think that unions and teacher tenure are the problem, can you point to any studies that compare outcomes from schools where teacher tenure/union is the rule vs. schools where teachers are at-will, non-union employees with no rights to due process?
Remember, the key is to compare apples to apples, so variables regarding student/parent demographics/SES, and teachers’ resources must be held constant.
————
Edited to add:
Let’s even assume that we would want to get rid of teacher tenure. This would mean that teacher turnover (already very high, especially among newer teachers) would rise even further. Do you have any evidence to show that if you were to fire 100 experienced (but supposedly deficient) teachers that the pool of 100 new teachers would be any better? Again, it’s very well known in education circles that new teachers have a very steep learning curve and that most new teachers are deficient when compared to experienced teachers.[/quote]I don’t know of any study, but I’ve seen “Waiting for superman” and the “Rubber room” was brought to my attention. There’s no guarantee that the teachers who replaces the teachers in the “rubber room” will be any better, but it can’t be any worse. So, it’s a upside with no down side. Why do you have to replace experienced teachers w/ new teachers? Why can’t you replace them with other experienced teachers?
But really, I’m not all that bothered by tenures and teachers union. I’m just bothered that they’re preventing competition and choice. The fact that the teachers’ union are as strong as they are, what they say goes. Especially in a state like CA. That’s where my beef is. If we have voucher system, then I don’t mind if the teachers’ union exist and there’s tenure for public school teacher. If those tenure teachers are really superior, then there’s really nothing to worry about.
