Posted by Tina
A group of nine public schools students brought a lawsuit against the State of California alleging that legal protections teachers enjoy cause some students to be disadvantage and were particularly discriminatory in districts serving a disproportionate number of poor and/or minority students. These districts are where the worst performing teachers often end up. The legal protections include: The requirement to provide tenure after just 18 months on the job; dismissal statutes that make it nearly impossible for administrators to fire a teacher for bad performance; and the LIFO statutes that requires teachers be laid off in accordance with seniority rather than effectiveness.
On Monday the California Supreme Court struck down the lawsuit and ruled in favor of the teachers (union).
Neat deal, huh? Where else can you work and be assured such permanent status regardless your performance? If the kids in poor neighborhoods are ever going to have a chance this has to be changed. Noe it means it has to be changed by the people through our legislators. Do teachers also get raises based on years of service rather than performance? If so, that too must change.
In California…good luck. The people seem to be enamored with the Democrat Party even though year after year the promises made them are never fulfilled.
I applaud the students and their parents/guardians who brought the suit. I wish there had been a more positive outcome.
Source: Zero Hedge
Hmm. That fellow Chris who once frequented these pages and claimed to be a teacher. Maybe he is not as stupid as I think. A money train for the incompetent.
This has been going on for such a long time Pie. I don’t know how good teachers can hold their heads up.
But I guess it’s like everything else in America. We keep lowering the bar and wondering why everything is going to he77!
On what basis could a conservative claim that state legislators should not be able to set education policy the way they see fit without the interference of an activist court? The right to education is not specified in the Constitution, so I’d think those that prefer courts stick to originalism would concur with this decision even if they do not like the result.
The decision doesn’t offend me. The condition does.
It sounded to me that the claim was made based on discrimination since bad teachers are funneled into poor minority communities.
The fact that these students thought their only chance at getting a better education was through the courts is disturbing. This condition has been going on for many decades. Democrats keep saying they don’t have enough money more money hasn’t resulted in improved conditions and in fact won’t b because bad teachers are still bad even if they’re given more money, benefits, and perks.
I’d like to know on what basis the teachers union defends these policies and protects these teachers.
It looks like they place their selfish interests above the education of poor and minority students.
I’d also like to know what makes the teachers union believe it’s unanswerable to the taxpaying citizens. (Could it be the deal Democrat leaders have with the union)
It looks like the teachers have forgotten they are hired and paid to educate not to be guaranteed a paycheck for life no matter how poorly they perform.
As long as Democrats in the legislature and teachers unions work together against the students and the taxpayers these rules will stand. Proud (Chris?)?