LA Times: Seniority, not quality, counts most at United Teachers Los Angeles

[StrongBad]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez25-2009mar25,0,4942695.column?page=1&track=rss

I don't want this thread to turn into a flamewar or have myself be perceived as anti-union, as I am pro-union especially when it comes to teachers, but shouldn't there be some flexibility from the unions when it comes to making sure the best persons for the job are the actual ones doing the job? A job should not be guaranteed solely because one manages to show up for a long period of time.

I know that quality measurement for teachers is somewhat ambiguous and relative, but there should at least be a very bare bones and broad metric to measure whether a teacher is satisfactorily performing or not, and have that be a main factor in who gets let go during downturns.

Thoughts?

[C......N......C]

1. It is about quality of life. Keep your job unless you break contractual rules.

No need to punish. That is one of the reasons why we lost jobs overseas. Competition without regard to quality of life. Find someone else to do it cheaper and ruin millions of lives here.

[Fresh_Start]

2. among the things that are surprising me

in NoCal is thousands of teachers received pink slips, but they're having a job fair for teachers because they need math teachers and special ed teachers and bilingual teachers.

[C......N......C]

3. What about a 22 year old shining star replacing a 20 year mediocre veteran.

[Luminous Animal]

4. There is absolutely no evidence...

those with seniority are poor teachers. The article is an unsubstantiated right wing screed. Teachers are already assessed all the time. How this bullshit myth that they are not keeps getting trotted out there, despite evidence to the contrary stated over and over again, is mind boggling.

By the way, during the last let's-fuck-over-the-teachers-unions fest on this board, I found studies that showed that the top indicator for student improvements are veteran teachers... both in the private sector and in the public sector.

[StrongBad]

5. The issue isn't whether or not they're already assessed all the time...

...it's whether it's fair to not have the evaluations factor in to who gets a pink slip when it is necessary.

You did read the article, right?

[Luminous Animal]

7. I read the article.

It is the same tripe that the destroy the unions brigade has been trotting out for 30 years. Evaluations are consistently applied during the school year... year after year. The veteran teachers have already been deemed competent.

[EFerrari]

6. The worst thing about global warming is fewer ice floes to put seniors on.

:sarcasm:

[Luminous Animal]

8. By the way, seniority does count.

It offers security for a low paying job. It protects against the whims of administrators and politicians.

The author of the article makes the claim that veteran teachers are not quality teachers with no evidence to back up that claim.

[StrongBad]

9. I don't think it's fair for one to say that veteran teachers are poor teachers.

That is a stereotype and I in no way agree with the author if that's what he was implicating. What I got from the article was that it could be considered both inefficient and unfair for quality of teaching not to factor in to who gets laid off when the union must layoff people.

Why would you argue that seniority should be the only factor in job retention?

[EFerrari]

10. Because when most of our new teachers quit in the first five years

retention is a big issue and you should retain those workers who have a record of sticking with their job.

/ack, bad typying

[Fumesucker]

11. Let's face it..

Most people start their work careers as good as they're ever going to get at a given job, they only get worse with experience.

Oh, wait..