[quote=EconProf]Today’s copy of USA Today has some interesting data points about the status quo with existing tenure and unions in CA:
1. An average of 2.2 teachers a year are dismissed for unsatisfactory performance in a state where 275,000 teachers work.
2. A CA teacher has a better chance of being struck by lightning than being fired for incompetence.
3. A teacher in CA can gain what amounts to lifetime job protection in less than two years–the deadline for deciding whether to give tenure to new, probationary teachers. When layoffs occur, the newest teachers are the first to go, even if they are top performers. Seniority rules.
This is the status quo that union defenders have to answer for. Now that parents, employers, and the broader public is demanding change, I think that is a good thing. And I really don’t mind if rich people are among those advocating change. Let’s look at the merits of the arguments, not who is pushing for the needed reforms.[/quote]
You think that unions and teachers should be scrutinized, but the mega-millionaires and billionaires who are pushing the anti-union message shouldn’t be scrutinized? Oh, hell no! More than anything, we need to get the word out about who is behind the anti-union message and why they are pushing this message. And it has nothing at all to do with what’s right for students or taxpayers!
In this post, you acknowledge that the non-tenured teachers are more heavily concentrated in the poor and poorly-performing schools. Doesn’t this contradict your entire message about unions and tenure putting these students at a disadvantage? Wouldn’t those non-tenured teachers want to “work harder” in order to avoid being terminated?
So, again, I’m asking you: Where is the evidence; where are the statistics and data — taking into account IQ/SES/parental resources — that shows that teachers’ unions and/or tenure have a negative impact on student outcomes? Answer this question, and then we can continue with the conversation once we have more information.
