PROP. 74
PROP. 74: TENURE FOR TEACHERS ONLY AFTER
A REASONABLE TRIAL PERIOD IS ONLY
REASONABLE
by
Ken Eliasberg
Based on the completely over-the-top ranting that the Teacher’s Unions are spewing all over the media, one would think that this proposition—prop. 74 - was coming up with some outrageous test that a teacher-in-training would have to meet before she(he) secured a virtual life-time position And they would be right if a 5-year waiting period meets your idea of what constitutes outrageous. Bear in mind that the current waiting period is 2 years. This means that a teacher who is only out of college for a period of two years qualifies for a position which virtually assures life-time security. Now the Unions will argue that it is always possible to fire a teacher. And, as an abstract proposition, that may be true. But on a closer examination, you will discover that a teacher has a better chance of flying (without the assistance of a plane) than getting fired (we’ll look at the statistics on teacher firing a little later in the discussion; for present purposes, suffice it to say that it just doesn’t happen—no matter how incompetent the teacher may be).
Now again, bear in mind that all prop. 74 is asking the voters to pass upon is extending the current 2-year waiting period to one of 5 years. What is so unreasonable about that—particularly given the deplorable state of education in our State? Also consider how ridiculous the Union argument seems in light of Senator Boxer’s concern for life time tenure for Supreme Court justices—men and women who, regardless of their political orientation, have distinguished themselves over 25 to 30 years subsequent to typically distinguishing themselves in college and law school, i.e. we should worry about giving capable and experienced people tenure, but we don’t have to concern ourselves over doing such for those to whom we entrust the intellectual development of our children, i.e. teachers 2 years out of college, many of whom will distinguish themselves by virtue of their incompetence, and, in the process, either dumb down our children and/or indoctrinate them with a lot of left-wing nonsense. Once again, the Union is giving you pure unadulterated garbage—by people who don’t give a damn about students, parents, or, for that matter, teachers. All they care about is holding on to Union power so that they can hold on to their jobs.
Let me say that I value education almost above anything else that our society offers. It’s one of the two words that my father jammed down our throats while growing up (the other was responsibility). Having said that I value education let me hasten to add that I value GOOD education where we are concerned with merit (i.e. excellence) and academic achievement, not feel-goodism and self esteem. Children should have their feelings—e.g. self esteem - shaped at home; their thinking should be the subject with which schools concern themselves.
Let’s look at some hard, cold facts here regarding the sheer stupidity of opposing a 5-year probationary period. Think about it and do so in the context of your own worldly experience. How many of you are rewarded with a guaranteed life time position based on 2 years of work—even if that work were done at the highest level and reflected incredible competence? None of you! But our teachers not only have this prospect, but many of them function at extremely low levels of competence. For example teachers used to be given something called the C-BEST exam to determine their competence. In 1995, the last year for which I could find C-BEST exam results, approximately 50% of the teachers taking the exam flunked it (20% white, 50% Hispanic, and 65% black). Also consider the fact that this exam is pitched to an 8 to 10th grade level. Now, I haven’t found more current data, but I would wager that the results remain much the same.
Also consider that one of the reforms put in place some years back—I believe the only one that survived Union attacks—required our students to take an exam prior to graduation. The results—almost 50% of them could not pass the exam; bear in mind that the exam was given to 12th graders but only made 10th grade (later changed to 9th grade) knowledge demands on the
students—and still only 50% could pass. The Union response was predictable—let’s eliminate the exam (and thereby destroy the evidence of our teaching failures).
While the Union disputes the life-time tenure argument, their position is an exaltation of form over substance. Tenure is not, technically speaking, what is involved in public schools. It is involved in college level teaching and is designed to attract skilled professors by assuring them of free speech protection. While I oppose tenure, as I do any form of life-time guaranteed employment, I certainly understand it at the University level. However, while public shool teachers—teachers paid with your taxes—do not get tenure, they get the equivalent once past their probationary period, i.e. it is virtually impossible to fire them. From 1990 to 1999 13 dismissal panels were convened by the LA Unified School District, and only one “tenured” teacher’s case went through the process from beginning to end (according to a column in the Sacramento Bee on 1/4/05), and, while I don’t know the results in that one case, I would not be surprised if the teacher won“ leaving us with a dismissal batting average of 0 for thousands teachers (again, with 50% flunking the qualifying exam and producing students, 50% of whom flunked their qualifying exam). The next thing you know the Union will want life-time tenure to be awarded contemporaneous with a prospective teacher’s receiving her under- graduate degree. Along these lines I strongly commend to the reader’s attention a column by Thomas Sowell, a Hoover Institute Scholar, and an extremely bright guy re the intellectual level attained by many who aspire to teach in our public schools and are thereby put in charge of your child’s educational development http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomas sowell/ printts20050913shtml
How about the gifted teachers or students (and there are many of both)—what happens to them? The Union opposes merit pay for teachers—obviously, you don’t want incompetent teachers to feel bad, and liberalism is all about feelings. In our effort to convert education into some form of liberal love-in—you know, one of those kumbiya moments—we have done away with meaningful grading criteria. How about gifted students? Tough luck, we’re going to spend all our time on the less than gifted because, again, how will the ungifted feel if we call attention to their limitation? So gifted students are left to wade through their boredom. In short, teachers unions and the Democratic party are committed to obliterating any standard of excellence; the days of a meritocracy in American education are over. I firmly believe that NEA stands for No Excellence Anymore (as opposed to National Education Association).
I shall have more to say about the deplorable state of education (as well as Organized Labor) after dealing with some of the other propositions; in the interim I suggest 2 books for your consideration, The Conspiracy of Ignorance—The Failure of American Public Schools by Martin L. Gross, Harper Collins and Dumbing Down Our Kids—Why American Children Feel Good About Themselves But Can’t Read, Write, or Add by Charles J. Sykes, St. Martins Press (there are many more publications dealing with the sorry state of education in this country, in general, and California, in particular - for anyone interested contact the Examiner’s office and request more information, and I shall be happy to provide it).
Let’s take a step forward by going back to the days when excellence mattered and mediocrity was not rewarded, when confidence was based on competence not manufactured feel-goodism, when we looked to raise performance levels by raising the bar, not lowering it to accommodate incompetents, when teaching carried with it notions of prestige, not standards manufactured by Unions, concerned only with preserving their jobs, when teachers were professionals, not union members—IN SHORT, VOTE YES ON PROP. 74, it is a baby step in that direction. To be continued some time down the road.
PUT IN RAY HAYNES STUFF ON STUDENT TEST RESULTS
THEN DISCUSS C-BEST RESULTS
THEN TALK ABOUT MONEY—BECAUSE DEMS ALWAYS ARGUE THAT THE CURE FOR ANY PROBLEM IS JUST TO THROW MONEY AT IT
ALSO MENTION THE COMPLETE BREAKDOWN OF ANY NOTION OF A MERITOCRACY EITHER AMONG STUDENTS OR TEACHERS
THEN DISCUSS UNION OBJECTIONS TO MERIT PAY FOR GOOD TEACHERS.
THEN COME UP WITH A REALLY PUNCHY CONCLUSION
I believe that the records indicate that over the last 10 years approximately 13 disciplinary actions have been taken, and only one taken to completion (with the teacher holding on to his position). So spare me the disingenuous nonsense about firing teachers—it just doesn’t happen (even though it should and would in most other fields where an employee registered this level of incompetence) unless, of course, they turn out to be extraordinarily competent, thereby unlevelling the playing field and placing their tenure in jeopardy.
again—American history; it’s about time we put America back in American History instead of the left-wing garbage that presently passes for American History in our public schools (where our students are taught that America is an imperialistic power instead of the greatest civilization to ever inhabit this planet).
Until some standards of excellence—for both teachers and students—are built into the system, until incompetent teachers can be fired, and until we have evidence that these standards and practices are built into the system, I would recommend a 20-year probation period, not a 5-year period. While I’ll sit still for a 5-year period (only because I have no choice), I certainly am not the least bit troubled by extending the current waiting period 3 year—good teachers will have no trouble with this; incompetent teachers will not be competent at the any of any waiting period, no matter what its duration.