From another thread: Roman,
I will give teachers a 25% raise providied that they are tested for their ability to teach and stay informed of current technology and events. They must be held accountable like every other job.This brings up one of the biggest problems with our education system. Tenure. It protects incompetent teachers and offers society no real benefits, especially when we're talking about elementary or high school teachers. It costs over two hundred thousand dollars and takes years to fire an incompetent tenured teacher.
Not only is it exceedingly rare to fire a tenured teacher in Illinois, but it also is extraordinarily expensive.

In fact, Illinois school districts that have hired outside lawyers in these cases have spent an average of more than $219,000 in legal fees during the last five years.

In a follow-up to its award-winning investigation of teacher tenure in Illinois, Small Newspaper Group took an in-depth look at costs associated with teacher dismissals.

As staggering as that number is, it actually understates the ultimate cost of these lawsuits because 44 percent of these cases are still on appeal and the lawyer bills continue to grow.

Cost is a major reason cited by school officials for not trying to dismiss underperforming teachers, said T.J. Wilson, a Monticello attorney specializing in education labor law.

"When I sit down with school administrators who want to fire someone, I tell them to plan on spending at least $100,000 in attorney fees and that they still may lose," Mr. Wilson said. "Those administrators are sitting there thinking three new teachers could be hired for the cost of firing one bad one.

"There is always the possibility that the school district may have to cut some program that benefits children, just to pay for the cost of firing a teacher. This is the biggest reason school districts do not try to fire bad teachers."

In fact, in the last 18 years, 93 percent of Illinois school districts have never attempted to fire anyone with tenure, according to data tabulated from records at the Illinois State Board of Education.
http://www.thehiddencostsoftenure.com/
Meanwhile, our children are being given a substandard education. Does anyone else in the world have a job THEY CAN NOT BE FIRED FROM?

To really drive the point home, here's a case of an assistant principle who knocked up a seventh grade student and could not be fired despite blood tests which proved the child was his to a 99 percent certainty!

“Maxsimillion is pregnant by Dr. Hayes.”

That allegation was spray painted across a row of lockers in an East St. Louis junior high school, Maxsimillion Quarles recalled.

Quarles was a 14-year-old seventh-grader and Dr. Joseph Hayes was the assistant principal.

The year was 1985, a time when Illinois lawmakers were praising themselves for passing education reforms that they claimed would make it easier to fire bad educators.

The reality, Maxsimillion learned was much different.

Even though a blood test indicated a greater than 99 percent chance that Hayes was the father, a labor arbitrator ruled there was insufficient evidence to fire this tenured educator. http://thehiddencostsoftenure.com/stories/?prcss=display&id=266543

Teachers should be valued by their merit as teachers, not by how long they've been sucking at their jobs. Get rid of it.

Teaching is a thankless job

It imagine it is. I've had some really great but sorely underappreciated teachers, and I've had some really shitty teachers who were way out of their element teaching honors classes. I'm sure all of them heard nothing but complaints from students and parents.

I'm confused.

Are you saying that school teachers (i.e. secondary teachers) can get tenure in the US?

They can. Unionization and whatnot.

Illinois sure has a lot of problems. Do you have any evidence from other states?

Illinois sure has a lot of problems. Do you have any evidence from other states?
This problem is nationwide. I quoted the articles from Illinois because they had a good website with lots of good articles. Here's some info from a site in Arizona:

A teacher repeatedly calls his boss an obscene name, yells at him nose-to-nose and challenges him to a fight, poking him in the chest.
Fired? No. The local high school teacher remained in the classroom for six more years, during which time records show he was accused of sexually harassing female students and even fondling one girl's breasts.
Meanwhile, just a block away, an elementary school teacher was being physically and verbally aggressive toward students, records claim.
Fired? Same answer. The veteran teacher was told to stop, but continued teaching. Police were called last year, after a student claimed she injured him.
Bad teachers can remain in their classrooms despite years of concerns because firing them is a difficult, cumbersome process steeped in union protections and state law.
In fact, they say, tenured teachers rarely are fired here or anywhere, even though inaction can be dangerous.
When Kelly Hopkins picked up her fourth-grade son from day care in September, she noticed he had scratches and bruises. He said they were from his teacher, Oralia Dowell.
Hopkins, who works in the Pima County Public Defender's Office, immediately told the Duffy Elementary principal and police were called. In December, TUSD moved to dismiss Dowell, after at least 6 1/2 years of complaints of physical and verbal aggression toward students. She is appealing. http://www.azstarnet.com/news/118623.php
Not to mention California. The governor tried to get the "probationary" period before tenure kicks in extended to five years from two. The teacher's union spent two hundred million to defeat it, and defeat it they did. They'll be no crappy teachers fired in California, unless their incompetence or abusiveness is revealed within two years.
I'm confused.

Are you saying that school teachers (i.e. secondary teachers) can get tenure in the US?
Not only can they get tenure, it's mandatory for public school teachers after a couple years. It's not like college where only certain professors get tenure. In public school [elementary, junior high, high school] they all get tenure.

The appearant solution would be to abolish it in public school districts. But teacher's unions are quite strong, and I imagine teachers would be loathe to give up job security like that.

Darn people, "pensions", relative job stability keeps people in teaching. Remove that, and you'll get even less competent folks willing to teach. People are not that $tupid, you know.

Wonna learn what is tenureless teaching about? Visity your friendly nearby university. Speak with representative of the all growing caste of the untenured lecturers on janitorial salaries. You just might learn something.

$tupid, huh? That's real ©lever.

US Universities are doing far better than their secondary counterparts.

$tupid, huh? That's real ©lever.

US Universities are doing far better than their secondary counterparts.

US university's abstract "doing better" means little to some $18k/year, no benefits temporary lecturer with ZERO chances to move up the ladder into the tenured/permanent field. De facto, American universities separate themselves into several, nearly unmixing, castes of teachers. Students are not completely dumb not to see what teaching career might buy them. With any luck, none of them will be "damaged" by some frustrated lecturer.

I might not know all of the implications, but the way I see it, I am completely against the tenure system. I have had way too many professors who just don't care about their jobs. When they know that they have ultimate job security, there is no incentive to do better, and too few consequences when they do worse.

Just last term one of my tenured professors always showed up late to class, was never prepared for his lecture, frequently rambled on about things completely unrelated, talked down to his students in a very disparaging manner, and talked trash about his students behind their backs.

This isn't an isolated event. It happens in every school. I've only ever seen the bad side of the tenure system. Maybe it can be reworked into a functional system. Until then, I say it has to go.

I might not know all of the implications, but the way I see it, I am completely against the tenure system. I have had way too many professors who just don't care about their jobs. When they know that they have ultimate job security, there is no incentive to do better, and too few consequences when they do worse.

Ultimate job insecurity + low pay will bring the best and brightest into teaching, that's for sure.

You see, job (and income) of your professors depends very little on the teaching of you precious. Getting research grants and publishing some worthless crap is way more important. What you percieved as "not caring" could have been "having one's head full with way more important stuff for survival than your feelings". University tenure, contrary to the popular myth, is not 100% guarantee of the stream of cash into the tenured pockets. Neither it's 100% guarantee of the job title itself.

Ultimate job insecurity + low pay will bring the best and brightest into teaching, that's for sure.

Dixon,
I always know what your position on an issue will be, the opposite of mine.

There are plenty of people who would and do teach without tenure. Private schools operate without tenure and the students generally do much better than public school students.

say what you will about professors but they have real jobs aside from trying to cram basic knowledge into the heads of insufferable maggots. what is the point of teaching people who aren't willing to learn? :rolleyes:

You see, job (and income) of your professors depends very little on the teaching of you precious. Getting research grants and publishing some worthless crap is way more important. What you percieved as "not caring" could have been "having one's head full with way more important stuff for survival than your feelings". University tenure, contrary to the popular myth, is not 100% guarantee of the stream of cash into the tenured pockets. Neither it's 100% guarantee of the job title itself.

This is very true. Teaching is often seen as a necessary evil. It's mostly obligatory, but at the same time the real reputation of the person in question is based on how well he is publishing scientific work. Without good publications good scientists have no future.

This american system of being judged merely on the impact factor of your publications has now spread through the world. Professors are not really hired anymore based on their educational merits alone. Often the scientific work is more important. This is measured by how many publications this particular fellow has in high impact journals. And not in the past of course. There needs to be a constant stream.

If you are lucky someone like that likes teaching and is good at it. But what are the chances? Not 100%. Not 75%.

It is a miracle that good people actually stay at the University. There is much more money in corperate life. There are no bitching students there, less paperwork etc.

If you would visit a groupleader or professor in his office you will mostly see him shoving paperwork and applying for grants. That is what the system demands. Someone whose trackrecord shows he was a good scientists has to focus in the second part of his career that he is a good bureacrat. That is what the system is like.

Private schools operate without tenure and the students generally do much better than public school students.

Only in America.

You keep forgetting that.

Dixon,
I always know what your position on an issue will be, the opposite of mine.

There are plenty of people who would and do teach without tenure. Private schools operate without tenure and the students generally do much better than public school students.

Too bad that supply of the upper middle class folks able to shed few dozens Ks/yr. on a private school is limited. To teach without tenure for $70k/yr. is slightly different than do the same for $30/yr. Tenure, in the last case, is an equivalent of additional income. Certain level of stability is attracting not only dead wood but also reasonably competent folks who, to put it simply, are not competitive by nature, cannot sell themselves well, etc. Tenure is not perfect, but given the amount of $ society is willing to shed on education, it's reasonable trade off.

In universities/community colleges, untenured lecturers are doing much worse than $30/year. Some of them are retired and don't need much. The rest, excuse my language, is fucked. Fighting to get a teaching contract (need to be renewed each year/semester) to make $20K max/year skew teacher's priorities from teaching to survival, mix there anger/frustration and you'll get an idea about quality.

Too bad that supply of the upper middle class folks able to shed few dozens Ks/yr. on a private school is limited. To teach without tenure for $70k/yr. is slightly different than do the same for $30/yr. Tenure, in the last case, is an equivalent of additional income. Certain level of stability is attracting not only dead wood but also reasonably competent folks who, to put it simply, are not competitive by nature, cannot sell themselves well, etc. Tenure is not perfect, but given the amount of $ society is willing to shed on education, it's reasonable trade off.
Perhaps a deal could be negotiated, increase salaries for teachers in exchange for throwing tenure in the dustbin of history!

Public schools do exceptionally well in wealthy and upper middle class areas. They do poorly in urban, poor and minority areas in most cases. That tells us right there what the problem is. And it isn't teachers or unions.

I for one think teachers are hugely underpaid, overworked and unappreciated. They are expected to be parents, friends, doctors & nurses and teachers. When a gold toothed thug can make over $1M per year (LeBron James $80M for 5 YEARS) playing basketball and teachers in central Kansas make $25,000 per year, something is wrong.

Teachers are easy targets. Poverty and crime are tougher to tackle, thus the teacher bashing continues....

Does anyone else in the world have a job THEY CAN NOT BE FIRED FROM?
Yes, lots of people have employment contracts. Even if they want you to leave, they still have to pay you. It is common in jobs where there is alot of competition to get the best people, like in sports. I don't think it is possible to outlaw contractual obligations. Certainly colleges aren't required to offer it.

Public schools do exceptionally well in wealthy and upper middle class areas. They do poorly in urban, poor and minority areas in most cases. That tells us right there what the problem is. And it isn't teachers or unions.

Teachers can't be fired. It's almost impossible. But they can be transferred. Where do you think the bad ones end up? At the urban, poor, and minority areas you're so concerned about.

I live in an upper middle class area with one of the best school systems in the state. It's the main reason I moved to this particular neighborhood. A couple years ago one of my kids had a HORRIBLE teacher. My wife, who is also a teacher, complained and complained. Ultimately, the teacher was transferred to another school.

Teachers can't be fired. It's almost impossible. But they can be transferred. Where do you think the bad ones end up? At the urban, poor, and minority areas you're so concerned about.

I live in an upper middle class area with one of the best school systems in the state. It's the main reason I moved to this particular neighborhood. A couple years ago one of my kids had a HORRIBLE teacher. My wife, who is also a teacher, complained and complained. Ultimately, the teacher was transferred to another school.
People with money approach education seriously. That isn't the case in many poor areas, whether in rural or urban settings. If you have parents that need you on the farm fulltime, or parents that never got an education themselves then the problem begins. Not all teachers in poor performing districts are bad. Much more is expected of them with less funding, less parental interest and often times less pay for a truly thankless job. In wealthier suburbs people have the income to support their schools and patrons take a real interest in their kids' education. But instead of tackling the problems of poverty, crime and dead-end neighborhoods we still just seem to LOVE bashing the last frontier of hope for these kids; Their Teachers.

I for one think teachers are hugely underpaid, overworked and unappreciated. They are expected to be parents, friends, doctors & nurses and teachers. When a gold toothed thug can make over $1M per year (LeBron James $80M for 5 YEARS) playing basketball and teachers in central Kansas make $25,000 per year, something is wrong.
I disagree - I think that the idea of teachers being underpaid is a myth. The average salary for a teacher is around 44k, which is close to the average national salary in the US. It's a pretty normal salary for someone who only has a bachelor’s degree. And by the way, the average teacher salary in Kansas is $38k.

People like LeBron James are highly paid because they do a job that very, very few people are able to do. Almost anyone can teach if they want to – it doesn’t require any special intelligence, ability, or education.

University professors are arguably underpaid - a typical professor starts around $40k-$60k, rather than the $80k+ that they could make in industry...but then, only something like 25% of PhD holders go into academia.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos069.htm
http://www.kssmallbiz.com/articles/article_232.asp

I disagree - I think that the idea of teachers being underpaid is a myth. The average salary for a teacher is around 44k, which is close to the average national salary in the US. It's a pretty normal salary for someone who only has a bachelor’s degree. And by the way, the average teacher salary in Kansas is $38k.

People like LeBron James are highly paid because they do a job that very, very few people are able to do. Almost anyone can teach if they want to – it doesn’t require any special intelligence, ability, or education.

University professors are arguably underpaid - a typical professor starts around $40k-$60k, rather than the $80k+ that they could make in industry...but then, only something like 25% of PhD holders go into academia.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos069.htm
http://www.kssmallbiz.com/articles/article_232.asp
I have a friend that teaches in central Kansas. She makes $10,000 less per year than I do as a custodian in a wealthier district. I do believe teachers should make much, much more than they do for the job we expect out of them. They're easy targets for 3rd Reich Radioheads and talking heads on Family Values Fox Network but the usual conservative approach is to ignore the real tough problems in poorer districts and let the problem 'trickle down' to the next generation. Meanwhile it's still hip to open fire on teachers.

Apparently teachers in Australia are paid three times as much as teachers in South Africa, so maybe tenure would help here. Science education in particular isn't nearly good enough - but I wonder how much of that is lack of qualified people, and how much lack of attraction to teaching as a career.

I have a friend that teaches in central Kansas. She makes $10,000 less per year than I do as a custodian in a wealthier district. I do believe teachers should make much, much more than they do for the job we expect out of them. They're easy targets for 3rd Reich Radioheads and talking heads on Family Values Fox Network but the usual conservative approach is to ignore the real tough problems in poorer districts and let the problem 'trickle down' to the next generation. Meanwhile it's still hip to open fire on teachers.
It's always sad when people are underpaid, but the statistics seem to show that, on average, teachers are well-paid in the US. The average national salary for people with a bachelor's degree is $51k. With an average of 44k, teachers are only only making about 12% less than the average bachelor's salary. This does not seem like a huge discrephancy to me.

It's always sad when people are underpaid, but the statistics seem to show that, on average, teachers are well-paid in the US. The average national salary for people with a bachelor's degree is $51k. With an average of 44k, teachers are only only making about 12% less than the average bachelor's salary. This does not seem like a huge discrephancy to me.
You won't find salaries for teachers like that except in big cities and their suburbs. Even where I work, in an upscale 3rd ring suburban public school district teachers make no where near $51k in public schools. I think if everyone had to walk in someone else's shoes for a year we'd see alot more respect for non corporate jobs.

You won't find salaries for teachers like that except in big cities and their suburbs. Even where I work, in an upscale 3rd ring suburban public school district teachers make no where near $51k in public schools. I think if everyone had to walk in someone else's shoes for a year we'd see alot more respect for non corporate jobs.
Salaries are low in general in Kansas. The average annual income in Kansas is just $34k - so once again, since teachers in KS are making an average of $35k/year they are very close to the average income for their area.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_ks.htm

Salaries are low in general in Kansas. The average annual income in Kansas is just $34k - so once again, since teachers in KS are making an average of $35k/year they are very close to the average income for their area.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_ks.htm
Interesting link. Cost of living is also low in the KC area. A friend and his wife just sold their $300,000 house here. And in Chicago, their new home, the same size house lists at $800,000+

Public schools do exceptionally well in wealthy and upper middle class areas. They do poorly in urban, poor and minority areas in most cases. That tells us right there what the problem is.

It tells us where the problem is, not what!

It tells us where the problem is, not what!
The problem is trans-generational poverty among US minorities in urban areas.