Should Teacher Tenure Be Abolished?

[One Brow]

If the subjective subjection hadn't been so subjectively subjectified then the trivial triviaisms wouldn't have trivified trivia.

I'm just hoping before people advocate to heavily against the unions, tenure, etc., they look at why we have them in the first place. Sometimes cures are worse than diseases.

In retrospect, I'd like to personally thank you for your efforts in thwarting disaster. Rock on dude!

Thank you. It's all for the infants, elderly, and immuno-compromised.

 

[One Brow]

30 students? In one class, maybe. Most high school teachers teach 5-8 classes, so it's more like 150 kids per day, give or take. And that's just the hour or so per day they get with the kid.

However, then my ability to teach math interacts with what an English, history, etc. teacher is doing.

I agree that relevance is important. Unfortunately many young people don't understand what's relevant. Further, if you are teaching skills that are relevant for a particular class of job, they will be irrelevant to the 90% of the students who want a different class of job. What we try to do is teach skills and thinking that have general applicability, but that means the specific applicability is often lacking.

 

[moevillini]

In the old days, the reason for tenure was to keep politicians from stacking the schools with their cronies, to keep the State from turning education in propaganda and/or citizenship conditioning...

this is true, although not so much the state since I'm pretty sure schools have always been controlled at the local level. (though maybe that's what you meant, and used the term "state" in a more generic sense) But most local school boards are elected, and the perceived problem was that teachers would be hired and fired as new board members came into power - - whether it be for personal reasons or because those serving on the school board had some specific educational agenda they wanted to implement.


An interesting thing regarding k-12 curricula, it seems that more schools today are trying to go back to the "old-school" curricula of the 40's and 50's with more focus on memorization and things like that. For a while it seems that fell out of favor as schools seemed to focus on developing "critical thinking skills" and memorization was seen counter to those skills.

I think tenure needs to be modified. A longer time span initially, and perhaps some recertification process every 10 years or so. It can be difficult to assess however as there are so many variables.

I also think some of the problems (where student progress is lacking) are less with individual teachers and more with the curriculum that is being taught.

 

[Stickler]

Oh, I guess my post was directed at you then.

So why do you think it necessary for a person to have done a thing in order to criticize a thing. I mean, I think it's funny that people who have never been President criticize the President, as they clearly don't understand the pressures involved. It's strange how people criticize rapists. If you've never been a rapist, you don't know the pull and the magic that it contains for a rapist. Etc.

Nobody has to be an expert on teachers in order to say: I don't know about you, but many of my teachers weren't worth the paper their various certificates were printed on.

This idea that any criticism of teachers is invalid because it is made by people who haven't taught, or done research, is a pretty cheap argumentative tactic. I did 13 years of research by being a student who went to school every day and realized: Hey, this is a major problem. Most of these teachers don't seem like they care about what they're doing.

Students generally don't succeed because of teachers: those who have special success usually would have had it regardless of who their teachers happened to be, because they were curious people who were interested in learning and willing to do the work. College shows us this. But, heaven knows many teachers are quick to point the finger at parents when a student isn't succeeding.

So, do teachers deserve the credit but not the blame?

My own opinion is, they don't necessarily deserve the blame except in certain extreme cases where the teacher is a real dickgoblin. Many of us had at least one such teacher. (For references, see the Pink Floyd song, "Another Brick in the Wall, Pt. 2.") By the same token, they don't usually deserve the credit except in certain extreme cases. (See: your favorite teacher.)

So what I propose is: let's not be so impressed with teachers.

 

[CONAN]

So why do you think it necessary for a person to have done a thing in order to criticize a thing.

Criticize away just be aware of a certain level of ignorance.

Nobody has to be an expert on teachers in order to say: I don't know about you, but many of my teachers weren't worth the paper their various certificates were printed on.

Sure but to use that anectdotal data as a basis for judging the whole is again ignorant.

This idea that any criticism of teachers is invalid because it is made by people who haven't taught, or done research, is a pretty cheap argumentative tactic. I did 13 years of research by being a student who went to school every day and realized: Hey, this is a major problem. Most of these teachers don't seem like they care about what they're doing.

You can go to 50 years of schooling and your sample size is still very small and again anectdotal.

Students generally don't succeed because of teachers: those who have special success usually would have had it regardless of who their teachers happened to be, because they were curious people who were interested in learning and willing to do the work. College shows us this. But, heaven knows many teachers are quick to point the finger at parents when a student isn't succeeding.

This is definitely off a bit. It's not so black and white.

So, do teachers deserve the credit but not the blame?

Both.

My own opinion is, they don't necessarily deserve the blame except in certain extreme cases where the teacher is a real dickgoblin. Many of us had at least one such teacher. (For references, see the Pink Floyd song, "Another Brick in the Wall, Pt. 2.") By the same token, they don't usually deserve the credit except in certain extreme cases. (See: your favorite teacher.)

That's a very narrow-minded and ignorant view.

So what I propose is: let's not be so impressed with teachers.

Pride rearing it's ugly head here.

 

[Stickler]

I'm not giving evidence. I've never claimed to be providing evidence. I've been exceedingly clear about that. Continuing to dig at me because my evidence is anecdotal is just pointless. You're right: my "evidence" is anecdotal. I fully understand and agree.

Could you explain why my view that teachers should only occasionally be given the credit for a student's success or failure is narrow-minded and ignorant? What is it, exactly, about that statement that you would disagree with?

Could you explain why you think "pride" has reared its ugly head? What is it about my statement that I don't find teachers, in general, to be so impressive as to deserve a place of heroism in our society, that you find prideful?

Thank you.

 

[LogGrad98]

Criticize away just be aware of a certain level of ignorance.


Sure but to use that anectdotal data as a basis for judging the whole is again ignorant.


You can go to 50 years of schooling and your sample size is still very small and again anectdotal.


This is definitely off a bit. It's not so black and white.


Both.


That's a very narrow-minded and ignorant view.


Pride rearing it's ugly head here.

Well apparently we have a new Unibrow. Didn't you know the line-by-line response shtick is already taken?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I'm not giving evidence. I've never claimed to be providing evidence. I've been exceedingly clear about that. Continuing to dig at me because my evidence is anecdotal is just pointless. You're right: my "evidence" is anecdotal. I fully understand and agree.

Could you explain why my view that teachers should only occasionally be given the credit for a student's success or failure is narrow-minded and ignorant? What is it, exactly, about that statement that you would disagree with?

Could you explain why you think "pride" has reared its ugly head? What is it about my statement that I don't find teachers, in general, to be so impressive as to deserve a place of heroism in our society, that you find prideful?

Thank you.

The problem with your argument is why anybody should take anything you say in this topic as anything but anecdotal and based solely on your experience and so not particularly germane to the thread? It would be like someone saying Alaska is warm because he/she spent one day there and it was unseasonably warm.

 

[CONAN]

Well apparently we have a new Unibrow. Didn't you know the line-by-line response shtick is already taken?

Agreed.

 

[CONAN]

The problem with your argument is why anybody should take anything you say in this topic as anything but anecdotal and based solely on your experience and so not particularly germane to the thread? It would be like someone saying Alaska is warm because he/she spent one day there and it was unseasonably warm.

Not to say non-teachers don't have plenty of good stuff to contribute. But to come in and start running your mouth when it's clear you are coming from a position of ignorance is lamish.

 

[CONAN]

Speaking of anectdotes, I know only a few teachers who think of themselves as heros or think they should be praised all day for what they do (they mostly suck anyway lol). Personally, I think that's a myth perpetuated by haters. But again just a combination of anectdotes and personal opinion here.

 

[Stickler]

Not to say non-teachers don't have plenty of good stuff to contribute. But to come in and start running your mouth when it's clear you are coming from a position of ignorance is lamish.

I wouldn't characterize talking about my experiences as "running my mouth." I also wouldn't characterize my position as one of ignorance. A person who says, "in my experience X" is not automatically wrong. It could be that X is entirely valid.