- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,173
- Reaction score
- 14,269
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Right.. because it's a we're broke thing.
No, it is an our priorities are ****ed thing.
Right.. because it's a we're broke thing.
Surely there was another teacher that didn't preform as well as her that could have been laid off instead.
California = #1 in educational spending.
Near last in test results.
How do you objectively determine which teachers are performing well and should be kept, and which are mediocre and should be the first let go?
You don't believe you singled out Republicans. Did you not just write this?
The POLICY is the same just that, in this case, it is STATE LAW, rather than union policy, that dictates SENIORITY, not performance, be used as THE layoff criteria. ;-)
Face it: Neither party has a workable plan to balance the budget and get us back on track economically. The only plan either of them has is to blame the other party for the deficit, for unemployment, for every other ill that besets us. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have a plan to do more than shift the blame.
That is simply false. The only underperforming teachers who were fired are those with little to no seniority, not those with a lot of seniority. So all underperforming teachers were not fired before they fired the teacher of the year.
Sacramento
School spokesperson Gabe Ross told News 10 that who gets laid off is mandated by state law and is based on seniority, not performance.
How do you objectively determine which teachers are performing well and should be kept, and which are mediocre and should be the first let go?
Your making it seem harder than what it really is. Student grades and test scores would be a determining factor. The students of a lousy teacher will have lousy grades and test scores.
Sacramento ‘Teacher of the Year’ laid off
Work hard, excel at what you do, contribute to society, and get laid off anyway.
Ain't it great?
No one denied that. A lot of teachers were let go. The process, which is not decribed anywhere I can fine, ususally starts with under performing teachers, because they have cause to let them go. Some places ask for those who are considering retiring to do so (we did(, and then it is last in first to go. This is true with and without unions. And there are good reasons for this type of policy.
Yes. Its the fault of that teacher and the fault of every teacher and school administrator responsible for passing failing students. I do not know about the schools in your state but most of the schools in my state the students have different teachers for different subjects even in some of the elementary schools. So its not just one teacher being responsible for all the grades and test scores that all her students make.Since the tests are on-level exams, what if the majority of the class is NOT on level? Therefore, they're going to fail.
Is that the current teacher's fault?
According to the article the layoffs are based purely on seniority, not performance. So if any poor performing teachers were let go before Michelle Apperson it was due to the fact they had less seniority that Michelle Apperson, not because they were lousy teachers.
Your making it seem harder than what it really is. Student grades and test scores would be a determining factor. The students of a lousy teacher will have lousy grades and test scores.
Yes. Its the fault of that teacher and the fault of every teacher and school administrator responsible for passing failing students. I do not know about the schools in your state but most of the schools in my state the students have different teachers for different subjects even in some of the elementary schools. So its not just one teacher being responsible for all the grades and test scores that all her students make.
The article does not go into detail. In fact, it doesn't say exactly what you seem to think it says. She merely states the policy, and never uses the word soley.
Nor does she discuss poor performing teachers.[/QUOTE
See above.Considering the teachers being laid off is based on seniority why would they discuss poor performing teachers?
Only if all students are exactly same. Any one who has taught knows that they are different from one classroom to the enxt, even when taught by the same teacher. This type of illogical thinking is what led to NCLB, a criminally stupid bit of legislation.
NCLB has a lot of great things in it like firing lousy teachers, closing underperforming schools, and school choice.Most people against NCLB seem to be against firing lousy teachers and closing lousy schools.
You are ignoring facts.Read the article. For someone who claims to be a teacher reading comprehension seems to not be your strong suit.
Sacramento
School spokesperson Gabe Ross told News 10 that who gets laid off is mandated by state law and is based on seniority, not performance.
See above.Considering the teachers being laid off is based on seniority why would they discuss poor performing teachers?Nor does she discuss poor performing teachers.
It saddens me that anyone would believe this James. But, you are wrong. However it does explain a few things in this conversation.
Surely there was another teacher that didn't preform as well as her that could have been laid off instead.