Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackbird45
Here is the problem, teachers are offered tenure to compensate for their lack of salary.
The general public would have a fit if they had to pay a decent salary to a teacher.
So political negotiators offer tenure instead.
Tenure should be removed from all contracts and teachers should be held to their job performance, but the public should be aware that comes at a cost. You can't have it both ways.
|
It never used to be that way, or at least, it wasn't that way in Connecticut. Teachers in CT were state employees, college education was mandatory. If you wanted tenure you had to have been a teacher for a number of years, following the standards of the educational program, with no disciplinary action against you, and you had to have fulfilled additional requirements to continue your own education (at your own expense).
In other words, you had to EARN your tenure, it wasn't automatic. You earn it by proving you can be reliable, consistent, and respectful of the goals and policies of the school district you're in. Tenure wasn't a guaranteed job for life, but it made it much more difficult to fire someone. There had to be a valid reason to fire them, it had to go through the proper channels, and there would be union representation throughout the process. A valid reason might be - slapping a student. Showing up to work drunk (alcoholics might be offered ONE unpaid sabbatical to dry out and then permitted back for a probationary period). Sexually assaulting a student. Selling or buying illegal or prescription drugs to/from anyone on school grounds. Serious offenses. Not nonsense like "we don't discuss pronouns in class." That's just stupid, and does little other than make the students MORE curious about why it's such a big deal, when they probably never thought it was a big deal in the first place.