Plenty of people who don't suck at their jobs are fired every day.

 

The tenure system isn't perfect, but I've had pretty much this exact conversation with jenks before regarding teachers or unions or some other source of workplace rights. It's a pretty common theme to worker organization opposition; people see their own situation as less-than-ideal, and when they see some other group with more rights or protections, they want to drag them down instead. Instead of asking "why don't I have the same benefits?" the impulse to to make everyone equally inferior and powerless in the labor market. This is great for the wealthy owners and upper management, but terrible for the rest of the working class.

 

Protecing the worst teachers is awful for my kids.

Letting administrators fire the good ones because they want to cut costs is awful for your kids, too.

Letting administrators fire the good ones because they want to cut costs is awful for your kids, too.

 

And yet because of tenure, can't happen. This isn't a money problem. If it were a money problem, Washington DC would have the best school system in the US.

And yet because of tenure, can't happen.

 

Well that's exactly the point! Tenure isn't some evil system set up to protect bad teachers. It's meant to protect all teachers from management.

Well that's exactly the point! Tenure isn't some evil system set up to protect bad teachers. It's meant to protect all teachers from management.

 

And what it does it protect the worst, not the best. The best teachers aren't going anywhere. If they do, they will be quickly hired, just like the evil real world.

You're right, good people are never fired and left struggling to find work in the "real" world.

You're right, good people are never fired and left struggling to find work in the "real" world.

 

And yet with all those protections and being near the top of the world in per student spending, where are we at educationally?

That's not relevant to my argument against the silly idea that good teachers would never be fired without tenure or, if they were, that they'd quickly be rehired.

That's not relevant to my argument against the silly idea that good teachers would never be fired without tenure or, if they were, that they'd quickly be rehired.

 

It is relevant. The argument is that we are protecting bad teachers and it hurts the system. We spend more than most of the world on education and the only thing evident is that what we are doing isn't working. Why is that? Don't tell me it is a spending issue, because we spend more than almost the entire world on education.

I never said it was a spending issue. I never said that bad teachers weren't also protected by tenure. What I did say is that it's laughable to still be clinging to the idea that good people aren't fired from their jobs and, if they are, that they can find gainful employment without going through some major hardships. Especially in 2012, especially in education. It's flat-out ridiculous.

 

On top of that, teacher tenure is not unique to the US (32). South Korea and Australia are both at or near the top of educational rankings and have tenure systems. So, clearly, it can't be tenure itself that is the problem. It could be that the specific implementation of tenure in some counties or districts is flawed, but the general idea of granting teachers tenure is not why the US lags in education.

I never said it was a spending issue. I never said that bad teachers weren't also protected by tenure. What I did say is that it's laughable to still be clinging to the idea that good people aren't fired from their jobs and, if they are, that they can find gainful employment without going through some major hardships. Especially in 2012, especially in education. It's flat-out ridiculous.

 

On top of that, teacher tenure is not unique to the US (32). South Korea and Australia are both at or near the top of educational rankings and have tenure systems. So, clearly, it can't be tenure itself that is the problem. It could be that the specific implementation of tenure in some counties or districts is flawed, but the general idea of granting teachers tenure is not why the US lags in education.

 

And yet we outspend both of them. Go figure.

Sweet, now address something relevant to your claims about tenure, please.

Sweet, now address something relevant to your claims about tenure, please.

 

 

But wouldn't a school need cause to fire someone? The lawyers would love that.

They do now, because of tenure. At schools without tenure? Or if tenure was eliminated and similar firing protections weren't negotiated in contract? No, they wouldn't. They'd be just like any other employee in Illinois who can be fired at will and without cause.

And yet we outspend both of them. Go figure.

The OECD put out a report on teacher pay/work hours a few years ago. Numbers are late 2000's. Bottom line is...teachers in the U.S. spend more time teaching than in any other country. Their pay is not at the top, but is above the OECD average by a small amount. However, if you also adjust for the country's GDP (basically, share of the economy going to teacher salaries), the U.S. falls to below average.

 

Of course, one potential caveat is benefits, which are hard to count, particularly since health care is so much more expensive in the US than everywhere else in the OECD and in general public retirement benefits are less.

 

Of course, if you start noting that the public retirement and health benefits are less in this country, then you suddenly have a big impetus for why teachers would want some sort of tenure system...to protect them until the point where they can qualify for benefits, rather than having to worry about being fired for something like being too expensive.

 

The other thing to take from that is that although the U.S. does spend quite a bit of money on education...it doesn't filter down to the teacher salary level.

The OECD put out a report on teacher pay/work hours a few years ago. Numbers are late 2000's. Bottom line is...teachers in the U.S. spend more time teaching than in any other country. Their pay is not at the top, but is above the OECD average by a small amount. However, if you also adjust for the country's GDP (basically, share of the economy going to teacher salaries), the U.S. falls to below average.

 

Of course, one potential caveat is benefits, which are hard to count, particularly since health care is so much more expensive in the US than everywhere else in the OECD and in general public retirement benefits are less.

 

Of course, if you start noting that the public retirement and health benefits are less in this country, then you suddenly have a big impetus for why teachers would want some sort of tenure system...to protect them until the point where they can qualify for benefits, rather than having to worry about being fired for something like being too expensive.

 

The other thing to take from that is that although the U.S. does spend quite a bit of money on education...it doesn't filter down to the teacher salary level.

 

So once you manipulate the numbers, you come up with the conclusion you want.

 

Again, if money spent is the key, why doesn't Washington DC have the best school system in the country?

Sweet, now address something relevant to your claims about tenure, please.

 

I am sure the NEA protecting bad teachers isn't hurting the system at all. It makes perfect sense.

I am sure the NEA protecting bad teachers isn't hurting the system at all. It makes perfect sense.

 

I'm sure that has nothing to do with you talking about costs and how we're worse than other countries, because those other countries also have strong tenure systems, some even stronger than ours. This clearly shows that tenure systems period are not the cause of differential results in education. You need to show that our tenure systems are worse than other countries' systems if you want to supportyour argument.

 

And you still need to support the claim that good teachers wouldn't get fired or would quickly find new jobs, unless you're dropping that bit of silliness.

Edited August 30, 201213 yr by StrangeSox

I'm sure that has nothing to do with you talking about costs and how we're worse than other countries, because those other countries also have strong tenure systems, some even stronger than ours. This clearly shows that tenure systems period are not the cause of differential results in education. You need to show that our tenure systems are worse than other countries' systems if you want to supportyour argument.

 

Tenuring bad teachers has nothing to do with the cost in the system? Talk about supporting my argument.

You ask: why should teachers have more protections than I do, where I can be fired today without notice and without compensation? I ask: why shouldn't you have the same protections that teachers have so that you can't be fired today without notice and without compensation?

 

First, without notice and without compensation is not a tenure system. A tenure system is you basically have to really f*** up to be fired. That's crap. I don't want to live in a society where businesses are forced to keep s***ty employees just because they've been there a long time. Should businesses do that on their own? Probably, but that's up to the business owner.

 

Second, you already have protection. You don't need notice, but you do get compensation in the form of unemployment benefits if you're fired. Moreover, if you're fired simply because you're old, you can sue.

 

Sorry, I just don't buy your view of the world, especially the business world.

Tenuring bad teachers has nothing to do with the cost in the system? Talk about supporting my argument.

 

No, not really, not unless you can show how our tenure system is worse in this regard than other countries' systems. Because otherwise it's a common feature and wouldn't lead to different results, which is what you started talking about when I made my broad critique of the crab mentality working-class (blue- and white-collar) people often exhibit.

No, not really, not unless you can show how our tenure system is worse in this regard than other countries' systems. Because otherwise it's a common feature and wouldn't lead to different results, which is what you started talking about when I made my broad critique of the crab mentality working-class (blue- and white-collar) people often exhibit.

 

Crab mentality is actually a pretty apt description honestly. I'd say it is the entire Democratic Economic Platform.

First, without notice and without compensation is not a tenure system. A tenure system is you basically have to really f*** up to be fired. That's crap. I don't want to live in a society where businesses are forced to keep s***ty employees just because they've been there a long time. Should businesses do that on their own? Probably, but that's up to the business owner.

 

A global tenure system probably is a bad idea, but stronger worker protections are not.

 

Second, you already have protection. You don't need notice, but you do get compensation in the form of unemployment benefits if you're fired.

 

Unemployment benefits keep someone from instant poverty, but they run out. And unless you can get coverage through a spouse, COBRA is incredibly expensive.

 

I'd be fine with a freer labor market if we had an actually robust social welfare system and Medicare-for-all health coverage, but until then, losing your job is a devastating event for most people.

 

Moreover, if you're fired simply because you're old, you can sue.

 

Ageism suits aren't exactly easy to win, and you have to be able to afford the litigation on your unemployment benefits. Not a real option for most people.

 

Unemployment benefits keep someone from instant poverty, but they run out. And unless you can get coverage through a spouse, COBRA is incredibly expensive.

 

I'd be fine with a freer labor market if we had an actually robust social welfare system and Medicare-for-all health coverage, but until then, losing your job is a devastating event for most people.

 

 

Let's just have the government print money for everyone! Problem solved. Socialism FTW.

 

Ageism suits aren't exactly easy to win, and you have to be able to afford the litigation on your unemployment benefits. Not a real option for most people.

 

You don't need a dime to bring an ADA claim.

 

 

If you want to talk about a real waste of resources, lets talk about special education and how much money is spent on each student.

 

/crickets

 

Argh damn once again no one wants to be the bad guy.