California teacher job protection laws ruled unconstitutional

Comments (21)
JamVee wrote:

ALL I CAN SAY, IS IT’S ABOUT TIME! This should have happened 50 years ago, when we began to wake up to what was, or was not, unconstitutional.

Jun 10, 2014 4:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jdunn1950 wrote:

According to the teacher’s unions, it is the parents who are responsible for the lack of education in this country. With their massive war chests, the teacher unions pound that message incessantly 24/7 to parents.

STOP LISTENING TO THIS NONSENSE! It is the teacher’s job to teach, not the parents. Parents have their own jobs (often harder and with more demanding bosses). The parents can give the children love, but it is not their job to teach their kids algebra.

If the teacher can’t effectively teach the kids algebra, they should be fired… just like the parents get fired if can’t do their jobs. If a teacher can’t motivate their students to learn the material, they should lose their job the same as a salesman will who can’t sell the company’s products.

Jun 10, 2014 5:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
dcayman wrote:

this is way past time…so sick of incompetent teachers and government workers avoiding the consequences of their stupidity…let the market get to work…

Jun 10, 2014 6:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Tenure never made sense. It only exists in the teacher-world. Which is about 5% of people. Real unions don’t use tenure. They use seniority and proficiency, which makes much more sense.

Jun 10, 2014 6:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Jim1648 wrote:

This story will get bogged down in the merits of the tenure system, and miss the real point. The judges are now running the public school system in California without benefit of the legislature.

No one will notice the unconstitutional power grab.

Jun 10, 2014 6:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Yerkidding wrote:

Really? Those of you who believe that parents play NO role in educating your children are DOOMING them to guaranteed failure. The difficulty in raising a child as a single parent or a household with 2 parents working is very evident in the performance of children in school. They struggle and often get left in the wake of an ever-swifter moving boat called “standardized testing.” My child was in a class of 30 2nd graders. 30! That is insane. These kids are in their reading, writing, and math formative years. These teachers who are underperforming cannot be tagged as poor teachers all the time. They, simply, may be overextended and improperly supported.

Get a clue. After you get a child and experience it All FOR yourselves.

Jun 10, 2014 7:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
big_tower wrote:

send teachers to Congress; no brain needed there.

Jun 10, 2014 7:32pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Yerkidding wrote:

AlkalineState, Teacher’s unions are REAL unions. Now, for your education, MOST, if not all, unions have a no-layoff clause in the contract. The USPS has one in each of its unions. 6 years no-layoff. It is designed to protect your job so you don’t get fired because you are starting to make too much money. It forces management to lay off juniors before seniors. Now, anyone can be dismissed for cause in EVERY state regardless of tenure, or not. Going through a procedure instead of firing someone on the spot ensure that those doing the firing are ACTUALLY doing it for cause and not for personal or budgetary reasons.

Jun 10, 2014 7:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Whatsgoingon wrote:

Too little, too late. The state passed prop 30 just last year, increasing tax for “education.” Yet it’s a drop in the ocean against gigantic pension commitments. Now UC system openly favors out-of-state students who pay full tuition, citing state funding accounts for only 12% of its budget.

The irony is, after all these years of “protecting teachers’ jobs,” The state still ranks in the the bottom in school ratings. And while front-line teachers got laid off in droves, the state tops the nation in million-dollar principals, and retired admins who rake in 6 figure pensions.

Unless the ruling retros back 100 years, it brings little hope to California parents.

Jun 10, 2014 8:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Tarcil wrote:

Tenure as it was originally conceived makes sense for university professors, as a way of allowing them more intellectual freedom in their research and publication without fearing to lose their jobs with unpopular academic conclusions. It does not logically follow that public school K-12 teachers, of whom it would be extraordinary unusual to find engaged in such academic research or publication activities, require the same level of protection in the name of academic freedom.

Jun 10, 2014 8:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MitchS wrote:

FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jun 10, 2014 10:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Kahnie wrote:

You better be afraid of this. Oregon has no tenure law and has one of the worst records in any test you might look at. Teachers who made any points of advocacy against administrators are going to be fired. Just as it has happened again and again in Oregon. Good news is that this is only Superior Court. Be careful of what you wish for, those of you who are happy with this. You really don’t know what the other side is. I’ve seen it in Oregon and it’s terrorize the teachers into submission.

Jun 10, 2014 11:49pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
euro-yank wrote:

I’d find it so hard to understand that CEOs of US companies are worth so much more in America’s mind than the people in charge of the education of their children. But if you want the cheapest money can buy then don’t be complaining when the next generation is not educated enough to get a job to pay for your social security.

Jun 10, 2014 11:52pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
theovulator wrote:

Yerkidding wrote:
“Really? Those of you who believe that parents play NO role in educating your children are DOOMING them to guaranteed failure.”

That’s true, ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

“My child was in a class of 30 2nd graders. 30! That is insane.”

That’s NOT true, ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE.

It’s not insane at all.

When I was in second grade, back in the sixties, there were also, at that time, 25 to 30 other students along with me in my class also.

Our teacher didn’t have any problems, and we learned a lot.

So in my opinion, it’s not so much class size, but rather, the competence, and stamina, of the teacher, as well as, the incidence of class distractions.

Class distractions are usually associated with special Ed students forced upon the class, as well as hyperactive kids who are now, these days, medicated.

Those kids that are medicated today for hyperactivity, were, back in my day, just threatened with physical punishment by way of paddling.

This seemed to work just fine back then. Today no longer allowed.
Even so, a class size of 30 should not be considered “too much” for a “competent teacher” to handle.

Jun 10, 2014 11:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
PaperTrails wrote:

dsf

Jun 11, 2014 2:11am EDT  --  Report as abuse
PaperTrails wrote:

Teachers who teach evolution should be dismissed.

Jun 11, 2014 2:11am EDT  --  Report as abuse
PaperTrails wrote:

Teachers who support gay marriage should be dismissed.

Jun 11, 2014 2:12am EDT  --  Report as abuse
PaperTrails wrote:

Negative numbers are the creation of the devil. Teachers who teach negative numbers should be fired.

Jun 11, 2014 2:14am EDT  --  Report as abuse
PaperTrails wrote:

Socialist teachers should be fired.

Jun 11, 2014 2:15am EDT  --  Report as abuse
MonitorLizard wrote:

“PaperTrails” needs to take “Clicking 101″ again and is obviously a religious zealot.

Jun 11, 2014 7:55am EDT  --  Report as abuse
booker71 wrote:

Both sides here need to take a breath. Sorry to dampen either your joy or horror, but the ruling did not say that tenure, seniority or an appeals process for dismissal are unconstitutional. It just said the laws are unconstitutionl as written, and left it open for the legislature to modify them.

If you read the ruling (which I was finally able to do after freeing up some memory) it turns out that the tenure rule could be fixed by changing it to vest tenure after, say, three years instead of two (actually less, since the decision has to be made much earlier), by enacting a waiver process for seniority or combining it with other factors; and making the appeals process less Byzantine than one that can take 2-10 years for resolution. Those who are fearing or hoping that teachers will now lose all protections and be thrown to the wolves of the school administration’s unchallengeable whims are both wrong.

That said, I oppose the ruling, because it seems to me the judge did exactly what he said he wasn’t doing: judging the “wisdom of the Challenged Statutes” rather than making a constitutional decision. Adding a year to the tenure decision process may be a wonderful idea, but I don’t see how it rises to the level of a constitutional issue.

Jun 11, 2014 10:59am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.