• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teacher of the year is laid off.

Surely there was another teacher that didn't preform as well as her that could have been laid off instead.

I'm certain there was, but that's not how unions work. It isn't about ability or merit with them, it's about seniority... And people wonder why our public school system is a failure.
 
California = #1 in educational spending.

Near last in test results.


On a per student basis, the California school system spent roughly $8,323 for each student. Nearly $5,000 less than that of Massachusetts. However, i would not make the case that per capita expenditures are the be-all end-all solution to our education deficiency.
 
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?
 
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?

That would be the question.
 
You don't believe you singled out Republicans. Did you not just write this?

I answered your post saying repulicans were not in the majority. I also told you I link how it came out, and how republicans sat on the sidelines. In a conversation, one comment leads to about. This is what we call context.
 
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. ;-)

Not entirely. Not with the state, not with unions, and not with any other company who as last in first out. Poor performers can be let go in all of them.
 
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.

This sadly is too true. Sadly.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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?
 
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.


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.
 
They should have laid off other teachers, but when money is tight layoffs need to happen :shrug:
 
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?
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.
 
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.

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. They laid off, what was it, 110 teachers. It is unrealistic to think there were 110 poor performing teachers. There may have been a hand full, tops. So, it then becomes simply following policy after that.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

I would agree that it's the fault of the administration for passing failing kids.
 
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.

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.


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. Are you a lemon, have you ever gone to the rubber room? I ask because you seem to have a habit of defending tenure and lousy teachers, so one has to wonder if you are merely protecting your golden goose.
 
Last edited:
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.

It saddens me that anyone would believe this James. But, you are wrong. However it does explain a few things in this conversation.
 
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.


Nor does she discuss poor performing teachers.
See above.Considering the teachers being laid off is based on seniority why would they discuss poor performing teachers?

I'm not denying that. The word sorely is not in the comment. Sorry. You ahve not effectively disputed what I said.
 
It saddens me that anyone would believe this James. But, you are wrong. However it does explain a few things in this conversation.

Why would it sadden you to fire lousy teachers and close under performing schools and to let children in under performing schools go to better schools? I would think lousy teachers and schools would give the teaching profession a bad name. You should be opposed to teachers who tarnish your profession.
 
Back
Top Bottom