Last In, First Out (LIFO) and Tenure

[saysmydoctor]

Andrew Sullivan's thought experiment (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/03/getting-rid-of-bad-teachers.html) concerning firing teachers with bad performance and the dissent (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/03/dissents-of-the-day-i.html) he received (http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/andrewsullivan/rApM/%7E3/6LKyxNqe5sI/click.phdo) made me think about LIFO from a more...humanist (?) perspective. I suggest everyone reading the articles and then put your thoughts here.

Me, I...don't know. Part of me agrees with him in the first place, unions need to come halfway and acknowledge that some of their members may be benefiting unfairly by being entirely mediocre. But, this particular dissent was what struck me:
I think you're overstating the ability to identify whether a teacher is incompetent. A teacher in order to get tenure in the first place has established competence for two or three years by not being laid off, excessed, or fired. So they already have an established baseline of competence. Now we're supposed to fire them at the first sign of evidence that they might no longer be competent? That's not how it works in any field, anywhere.


Also, a bit of an English fail on your part. Yglesias says, "It would give tenured teachers who are rated unsatisfactory by their principals a maximum of one school year to improve. If they did not, they could be fired within 100 days." You proceed to interpret maximum as minimum and within as after. Those are the opposite of what those words actually mean.

That is an incredibly valid point.

Also, can we abolish this idea that teachers have summers off? It's not all fun and games, a lot of teachers get second jobs and like the one reader says, many attend seminars and workshops to improve their trade--sometimes out of their own pocket.

[deFobbed14yrs]

I went to a pretty rich high school, and a lot of teachers I knew had summer jobs at camps and stuff so I agree with the whole stop bringing in the summer vacation argument. Their paycheck has to last 12 months from only 9 months of actual pay.

Also, I have always thought it was dumb for teachers to get tenure after 3 years. No other profession has something like that. I think at most teachers should get an evaluation for three or so years and get a guarantee of maybe 5 years where it's like tenure, where they can't get fired or w/e where after those five years they get another evaluation to continue their tenure-ship of another five years.
I've had some wacky teachers who should have been let go ages ago but because of tenure, the school was stuck with them because they might have been amazing 20 years ago, but now they're below par.

[saysmydoctor]

It's not as if those teachers just simply "get" tenure. It's a rigorous evaluation process. That's part of the reason there is such a high turnover rate for teachers, some don't make the cut--there is a lot of pressure those first few years.

I remember my old Intro to Mass Comm professor was actually denied tenure and subsequently fired (this was more related to budget cuts). LIFO in action. And he was a fantastic professor with a lot of experience with Upstate papers. Really unfortunate.

But then, there is also my professor I had for Educational Psychology who just received tenure and was also named to Graduate Admissions Committee, along with being a Department Vicechair or something. She was fantastic and one of those professors I want to know will be at the school, next semester.

[KingsCrossing]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not too familiar with the evaluation process behind obtaining tenure. I would imagine though, that the criteria and degree of difficulty would be markedly different for a college level professor at a university and a middle school teacher in East New York, no? Also, competence according to whom? If the evaluations are being done by the principal or vice principal of the school then in many cases that really doesn't hold that much weight - many of these administrators are completely clueless and out of touch. Like I said though, I don't know how the process works so any clarification would be appreciated.

[saysmydoctor]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not too familiar with the evaluation process behind obtaining tenure. I would imagine though, that the criteria and degree of difficulty would be markedly different for a college level professor at a university and a middle school teacher in East New York, no?
Yeah, for tenure, markedly and there are some stark differences between the two, but it's still a rigorous process nonetheless. I know in New York, for grade school teachers, it's three years. For college professors, I believe the rules may apply differently depending on the school. SUNY operates 64 campuses, 4 being the "university centers" with the others being a mass of community colleges, simple 4-year schools, some agri-tech schools, a med school, and the online college. But it took the professor I mentioned 7/8 years to get tenure. The other professor was denied tenure/fired after 3 years and chairing the department.

But, LIFO is universal. More of a grade school issue than a university one, mostly because they solve their problems by letting professors or other faculty retire and then just not filling the position. Geneseo is the first place I can think of.

[StephenYoung]

I go to a private school, and apparently the teachers at our school have contracts in the same style as NFL contracts. X amount of years, and they can get fired. Also, every student has to fill a booklet grading each of their teachers. Clearly the bad ones will have around 100 to 200 negative comments which is enough proof to fire them.

[KingsCrossing]

Yeah, for tenure, markedly and there are some stark differences between the two, but it's still a rigorous process nonetheless. I know in New York, for grade school teachers, it's three years. For college professors, I believe the rules may apply differently depending on the school. SUNY operates 64 campuses, 4 being the "university centers" with the others being a mass of community colleges, simple 4-year schools, some agri-tech schools, a med school, and the online college. But it took the professor I mentioned 7/8 years to get tenure. The other professor was denied tenure/fired after 3 years and chairing the department.

But, LIFO is universal. More of a grade school issue than a university one, mostly because they solve their problems by letting professors or other faculty retire and then just not filling the position. Geneseo is the first place I can think of.

Yeah I can imagine for university professors it's definitely more of a challenge. Just did a quick read-through on Wikipedia and thought this was interesting:

The period since 1972 has seen a steady decline in the percentage of college and university teaching positions in the US that are either tenured or tenure-track. United States Department of Education statistics put the combined tenured/tenure-track rate at 56% for 1975, 46.8% for 1989, and 31.9% for 2005. That is to say, by the year 2005, 68.1% of US college teachers were neither tenured nor eligible for tenure; a full 48% of teachers that year were part-time employees.

[deFobbed14yrs]

It's not as if those teachers just simply "get" tenure. It's a rigorous evaluation process. That's part of the reason there is such a high turnover rate for teachers, some don't make the cut--there is a lot of pressure those first few years.

I remember my old Intro to Mass Comm professor was actually denied tenure and subsequently fired (this was more related to budget cuts). LIFO in action. And he was a fantastic professor with a lot of experience with Upstate papers. Really unfortunate.

But then, there is also my professor I had for Educational Psychology who just received tenure and was also named to Graduate Admissions Committee, along with being a Department Vicechair or something. She was fantastic and one of those professors I want to know will be at the school, next semester.

Ha not in my school.
And that's great that good professors get that stability, but there are also a lot of other professions that do amazing things but don't get that stability like tenure even though they are fantastic, like doctors or whatever.
Just because you do a great job at your job for a few years, I don't think you should get a "free ride" for the rest of your profession. If later on you suck for more than a few years, you time is up, just like at any other job.

And I was talking more about high school, not college. I see the real issue with tenure in high schools.

[jawstheme]

Are we talking about college or high school here?

[spiffa0]

As an accountant, I was thinking we would be talking about valuating inventory.

[cabezadewebo]

As an accountant, I was thinking we would be talking about valuating inventory.

lol, I was getting ready to pull out my intermediate text book

[Ollie McKraut]

same here, really wasn't picking up on the connection between education personnel and costing inventory hahaha

[The Indigo]

Why isn't this in the education thread?

[apoemtothedead]

Seriously Sean, get this crap out of here. The politics forum is where I go to escape accounting.

[<*)))><]

Any idiot can get a teaching degree, so they get what they deserve.

[jawstheme]

They deserve great benefits and good compensation if they do their job well.

[plyb]

Tenure for higher education is a non-issue.
I have usually come to find you get tenure to quickly, and too arbitrarily (number of years is a poor metric), for grade school teachers.

They deserve great benefits and good compensation if they do their job well.
So you support merit-based pay for teachers?

[saysmydoctor]

Ha not in my school.
And that's great that good professors get that stability, but there are also a lot of other professions that do amazing things but don't get that stability like tenure even though they are fantastic, like doctors or whatever.
Just because you do a great job at your job for a few years, I don't think you should get a "free ride" for the rest of your profession. If later on you suck for more than a few years, you time is up, just like at any other job.

And I was talking more about high school, not college. I see the real issue with tenure in high schools.
It's state law. Yes, at YOUR school. And seeing that you're in NYC, Tweed plays an even heavier hand.

Yeah, you're right, and those professions should come with that sort of stability. Due process is in the Constitution.

The criteria for posting in this thread was reading the articles--judging by what you've written, you didn't do that.
Why isn't this in the education thread?
Because I didn't want it to be.

[jawstheme]

Tenure for higher education is a non-issue.
I have usually come to find you get tenure to quickly, and too arbitrarily (number of years is a poor metric), for grade school teachers.


So you support merit-based pay for teachers?

Not exactly. But I support a system that gets rid of poor teachers, instead of protects them. I also don't want to see teachers get punished for having little to no resources (which is why I don't fully support merit based pay), and I think teachers in inner city schools deserve better pay. Right now teachers in inner city schools are paid less, and I think it should be the opposite.

[saysmydoctor]

Tenure for higher education is a non-issue.
I have usually come to find you get tenure to quickly, and too arbitrarily (number of years is a poor metric), for grade school teachers.


So you support merit-based pay for teachers?
Yes, it is.

And, merit-based pay is fine--depending on how we define a teacher's merit.

[deFobbed14yrs]

It's state law. Yes, at YOUR school. And seeing that you're in NYC, Tweed plays an even heavier hand.

Yeah, you're right, and those professions should come with that sort of stability. Due process is in the Constitution.

The criteria for posting in this thread was reading the articles--judging by what you've written, you didn't do that.

Because I didn't want it to be.

Actually I did read the articles, and was using my personal experience as my background. There might be rules that say you need rigorous testing and standards to give someone tenure, it doesn't mean it was followed. I bet you think that just because a school is mandated to take a certain amount of health courses in high school, it means they do. Because my school sure as hell didn't. We took only half of the lawful amount of health classes needed for new york state and someone just singed off that y school offered adequate health courses to my syllabus. Just because there are rules set up for things, doesn't mean they are followed. A lot of teachers get tenure when they shouldn't.
I didn't go to public school in Queens, I go to college in Queens. I grew in suburbia and all i know is I do not believe anyone should get a guarantee job for only showing promise in the first few years of their job.It's ridiculous, especially since a lot of teachers become teachers when they should. So many had teaching as their fall back option and aren't passionate about it but bullshitted enough for a few years to get tenure.

Like i said, regular intervals of evaluations are needed.Schools that offer education degrees have to be up to par and accept good students, not just everyone, which is what a lot of colleges do. Every state should have teachers who at least have a masters in their subject.

[jawstheme]

Actually I did read the articles, and was using my personal experience as my background. I didn't go to public school in Queens, I go to college in Queens. I grew in suburbia and all i know is I do not believe anyone should get a guarantee job for only showing promise in the first few years of their job.It's ridiculous, especially since a lot of teachers become teachers when they should. So many had teaching as their fall back option and aren't passionate about it but bullshitted enough for a few years to get tenure.

I notice this a lot.

[saysmydoctor]

Actually I did read the articles, and was using my personal experience as my background
And you're saying NYC teachers, in your experience, don't go through a rigorous process? Not necessarily related to tenure, but here is just one example of how teachers are evaluated (http://gothamschools.org/2009/02/26/city-will-spend-15m-to-extend-judging-of-teachers-via-test-scores/). And there have been times Tweed has done secret evaluations without even notifying the teachers or the unions.

[saysmydoctor]

Actually I did read the articles, and was using my personal experience as my background. There might be rules that say you need rigorous testing and standards to give someone tenure, it doesn't mean it was followed. I bet you think that just because a school is mandated to take a certain amount of health courses in high school, it means they do. Because my school sure as hell didn't. We took only half of the lawful amount of health classes needed for new york state and someone just singed off that y school offered adequate health courses to my syllabus. Just because there are rules set up for things, doesn't mean they are followed. A lot of teachers get tenure when they shouldn't.

I didn't go to public school in Queens, I go to college in Queens. I grew in suburbia and all i know is I do not believe anyone should get a guarantee job for only showing promise in the first few years of their job.It's ridiculous, especially since a lot of teachers become teachers when they should. So many had teaching as their fall back option and aren't passionate about it but bullshitted enough for a few years to get tenure.
Uhm, that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Getting tenure isn't easy because of the benefits it entails, it's not just a hand out. Those pension packages and benefits cost districts and the state lots of money; salaries and benefits usually dominate school budgets.

That's not what tenure is. It's due process.

[deFobbed14yrs]

And you're saying NYC teachers, in your experience, don't go through a rigorous process? Not necessarily related to tenure, but here is just one example of how teachers are evaluated (http://gothamschools.org/2009/02/26/city-will-spend-15m-to-extend-judging-of-teachers-via-test-scores/). And there have been times Tweed has done secret evaluations without even notifying the teachers or the unions.

judges teachers based on their students’ test scores

Because that's accurate. All students are great test takers.
i'm against test based feedback.

My score on the ELA i'm sure had very little to do with my then current 5th grade teacher and how she taught me.

[saysmydoctor]

Because that's accurate. All students are great test takers.
i'm against test based feedback.

My score on the ELA i'm sure had very little to do with my then current 5th grade teacher and how she taught me.
So am I, which was part of why I shared that link.

[deFobbed14yrs]

Uhm, that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Getting tenure isn't easy because of the benefits it entails, it's not just a hand out. Those pension packages and benefits cost districts and the state lots of money; salaries and benefits usually dominate school budgets.

That's not what tenure is. It's due process.

Really fucking long process.
I had a teacher in the 8th grade for guitar. Turns out he was accused of being a child molester. He got to sit around for a couple of years until they figured out what to do with him.

I know what the point of your thread is. But I'm bringing up other things concerning how teachers should be measured, and it shouldn't be within 100 days or however they grammatically put it that didn't really make sense.

[deFobbed14yrs]

The thing they brought up was teacher can be fired within v100 days once they start being shitty. How to measure that? Is that really ok to do. Is it even right.
The wording was messed up which is what that person was talking about and what you quoted.
I don't think the whole 100 days things is valid and would work. Like I said, no tenure, just evaluations over the five years where they are "safe". If they fall behind they get put on probation for one school year. If nothing happens, they get fired.

I know it seems i went off topic in some of m posts, but i swear in my head it was all related.

[jawstheme]

And you're saying NYC teachers, in your experience, don't go through a rigorous process? Not necessarily related to tenure, but here is just one example of how teachers are evaluated (http://gothamschools.org/2009/02/26/city-will-spend-15m-to-extend-judging-of-teachers-via-test-scores/). And there have been times Tweed has done secret evaluations without even notifying the teachers or the unions.

That article actually seems like a fair step. "The reports grade teachers based on how much progress their students made on tests last year and give extra credit to those who made progress despite limitations such as students’ race, poverty, and class size." It shouldn't be the only factor when evaluating teachers but it seems like a good tool.

[saysmydoctor]

Really fucking long process.
I had a teacher in the 8th grade for guitar. Turns out he was accused of being a child molester. He got to sit around for a couple of years until they figured out what to do with him.

I know what the point of your thread is. But I'm bringing up other things concerning how teachers should be measured, and it shouldn't be within 100 days or however they grammatically put it that didn't really make sense.
And that's terrible. But to try and cast that as what happens universally is silly and it ignores those statistics that show that, for example in Texas, those first five years--those when you are trying to get tenure--the turnover rate is about 20% (http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/Texas-teachers-face-20-percent-turnover-rate-728673.php), with many factors involved. And this turnover rate costs money (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/20/AR2007062002300.html).

I think the problem is people magnify the horrors of what some teachers do--like you are now--without acknowledging that by and large, teachers have it really fucking rough, get shit pay (did you see that $37k salary in Texas?), and don't have certain workplace rights in the first few years. No, no, it's those select few that are abusing the system. It reminds me of when people complain about welfare fraud.

[saysmydoctor]

That article actually seems like a fair step. "The reports grade teachers based on how much progress their students made on tests last year and give extra credit to those who made progress despite limitations such as students’ race, poverty, and class size." It shouldn't be the only factor when evaluating teachers but it seems like a good tool.
I wonder how heavily Tweed actually considers those limitations.

[plyb]

Not exactly. But I support a system that gets rid of poor teachers, instead of protects them. I also don't want to see teachers get punished for having little to no resources (which is why I don't fully support merit based pay), and I think teachers in inner city schools deserve better pay. Right now teachers in inner city schools are paid less, and I think it should be the opposite.
Merit would have to be defined outside of test scores, so that resources are not an issue. Not saying its an easy thing to execute, but I think making that effort rather than settling for arbitrary pay is worth it. I think you would have to look at things like student improvement, student evals (once they hit a certain age... not sure a 1st graders eval would be helpful), parent evaluations (parents should know what their kids have learned), ect. Just some quick ideas.

This next part, note it is a hugely unfounded theory, but one I think may be true anyways.. feel free to respond.

As for inner city pay, that would be ideal, but I think it wouldn't work in practice. Many well off families choose their homes based off the schools quality. If more attractive teachers are moved to inner city schools, you would see a higher demand for housing in those city districts, driving up prices and changing the demographics of the area as a whole. It would be a slow change, but I believe it would happen though. Quality schools will increase the value of the area, and the people living in that area will change.

Yes, it is.
Non-issue is the wrong word. I should have said higher education's tenure is not where I believe reform is needed.

[saysmydoctor]

I personally want to do away with concepts like tenure and make due process in the workplace the law of the land. If you're gonna fire someone--anyone, you better have a reason.

Because when you're talking about someone's work: that's life and death. That's paying rent, paying bills, putting food on the table.

And that's serious.

[saysmydoctor]

Merit would have to be defined outside of test scores, so that resources are not an issue. Not saying its an easy thing to execute, but I think making that effort rather than settling for arbitrary pay is worth it. I think you would have to look at things like student improvement, student evals (once they hit a certain age... not sure a 1st graders eval would be helpful), parent evaluations (parents should know what their kids have learned), ect. Just some quick ideas.

This next part, note it is a hugely unfounded theory, but one I think may be true anyways.. feel free to respond.

As for inner city pay, that would be ideal, but I think it wouldn't work in practice. Many well off families choose their homes based off the schools quality. If more attractive teachers are moved to inner city schools, you would see a higher demand for housing in those city districts, driving up prices and changing the demographics of the area as a whole. It would be a slow change, but I believe it would happen though. Quality schools will increase the value of the area, and the people living in that area will change.


Non-issue is the wrong word. I should have said higher education's tenure is not where I believe reform is needed.
Fair enough.

[jawstheme]

I personally do away with concepts like tenure and make due process in the workplace the law of the land. If you're gonna fire someone--anyone, you better have a reason.

Because when you're talking about someone's work: that's life and death. That's paying rent, paying bills, putting food on the table.

And that's serious.

Absolutely. I don't think anyone would argue against that.

[saysmydoctor]

Absolutely. I don't think anyone would argue against that.
But, seeing as it isn't, I object to ending tenure. Fixing it, improving it--yes. Ending it? God no.

[deFobbed14yrs]

And that's terrible. But to try and cast that as what happens universally is silly and it ignores those statistics that show that, for example in Texas, those first five years--those when you are trying to get tenure--the turnover rate is about 20% (http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/Texas-teachers-face-20-percent-turnover-rate-728673.php), with many factors involved. And this turnover rate costs money (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/20/AR2007062002300.html).

I think the problem is people magnify the horrors of what some teachers do--like you are now--without acknowledging that by and large, teachers have it really fucking rough, get shit pay (did you see that $37k salary in Texas?), and don't have certain workplace rights in the first few years. No, no, it's those select few that are abusing the system. It reminds me of when people complain about welfare fraud.

There are a lot of good teachers. There are a few great teachers. There are a good amount of poor teachers, who don't want to be in a classroom, aren't good at explaining their subject, don't care and are kinda crazy.
If teachers are good-great, then they should have no problem keeping their job. If a teacher is lousy, and has been for years and the other teachers see it, the students see it the administration sees it, then that person should be fired. But those teachers can't be b/c that teacher has tenure and a union will sue. A union will sue for even less then that. Teachers get great benefits, and there are a lot worse jobs out there will worse benefits and more risks and less pay.
Why are teachers exempt when across the country, our education standards have fallen so hard.

[saysmydoctor]

Using Wisconsin as an example, the teacher makes about $56k with $25k in benefits yearly. Those are good benefits, but great? No. I'd argue that the adversarial nature of the union/district relationship is why those lawsuits will occur.

But moving away from tenure--LIFO. Talk about that now.

[plyb]

I personally want to do away with concepts like tenure and make due process in the workplace the law of the land. If you're gonna fire someone--anyone, you better have a reason.

Because when you're talking about someone's work: that's life and death. That's paying rent, paying bills, putting food on the table.

And that's serious.
What do you consider a just reason?
And should workers have to challenge the termination, or is it a required process for every termination?

[saysmydoctor]

What do you consider a just reason?
And should workers have to challenge the termination, or is it a required process for every termination?
The teacher mentioned earlier accused of molesting someone is one who would I fire. It's situation-dependent. Those who receive bad evaluations--ideally evaluations that included a combination of peer evaluations, test scores, teacher evaluations, and parent evaluations.

And, I guess this is where my own idealism comes in: workers should have the right to challenge the termination--but I would hope...that if the termination is justified--and they know it, they just let it go.

It may not be efficient--but it's equitable. And sometimes, I prefer equity over efficiency.

[<*)))><]

Using Wisconsin as an example, the teacher makes about $56k with $25k in benefits yearly. Those are good benefits, but great? No. I'd argue that the adversarial nature of the union/district relationship is why those lawsuits will occur.

But moving away from tenure--LIFO. Talk about that now.
Those are great benefits for one of the easiest jobs available, they talk, grade papers, get weekends and summers off. Some teachers get paid better per hour then doctors.

[saysmydoctor]

Those are great benefits for one of the easiest jobs available, they talk, grade papers, get weekends and summers off. Some teachers get paid better per hour then doctors.
Downright factually inaccurate, it wasn't even worth taking you off my ignore list to figure out what you said.

[<*)))><]

Teachers pay per hour compared to other jobs.
(http://www.myshortpencil.com/hourlyearnings.htm)

[jawstheme]

Is LIFO really the best thing they could come up with? This is why good teacher evaluation systems are necessary, so we don't decide which of our teachers are hired by a seniority system.

[saysmydoctor]

Is LIFO really the best thing they could come up with? This is why good teacher evaluation systems are necessary, so we don't decide which of our teachers are hired by a seniority system.
You should see this debate in NY: http://gothamschools.org/2011/03/02/dispute-over-layoff-bills-boils-down-to-a-question-now-or-later/

[jawstheme]

You should see this debate in NY: http://gothamschools.org/2011/03/02/dispute-over-layoff-bills-boils-down-to-a-question-now-or-later/

4,000 layoffs? Fuck that. I agree with the people in the comments section of that article:

I noticed that... NaN comments collapsed Collapse (http://gothamschools.org/2011/03/02/dispute-over-layoff-bills-boils-down-to-a-question-now-or-later/#) Expand (http://gothamschools.org/2011/03/02/dispute-over-layoff-bills-boils-down-to-a-question-now-or-later/#)
FOR GOD SAKE, TAX THE RICH NOW!!!!

<LI style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0px" id=dsq-comment-159563970 class="dsq-comment " data-dsq-comment-id="159563970">Progue NaN comments collapsed Collapse (http://gothamschools.org/2011/03/02/dispute-over-layoff-bills-boils-down-to-a-question-now-or-later/#) Expand (http://gothamschools.org/2011/03/02/dispute-over-layoff-bills-boils-down-to-a-question-now-or-later/#)
Tax the rich.


<LI style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0px" class="dsq-comment " data-dsq-comment-id="159563970">Roscoe NaN comments collapsed Collapse (http://gothamschools.org/2011/03/02/dispute-over-layoff-bills-boils-down-to-a-question-now-or-later/#) Expand (http://gothamschools.org/2011/03/02/dispute-over-layoff-bills-boils-down-to-a-question-now-or-later/#)
Yes, PLEASE tax the rich!

[plyb]

Teachers pay per hour compared to other jobs.
(http://www.myshortpencil.com/hourlyearnings.htm)
Extremely old data.

[jawstheme]

Extremely old data.

I wouldn't bother with fishbones. You can back your points up with all the facts in the world and it doesn't phase him.

[loveisdead]

Those are great benefits for one of the easiest jobs available, they talk, grade papers, get weekends and summers off. Some teachers get paid better per hour then doctors.

Fuck you.

[perceptrons]

Those are great benefits for one of the easiest jobs available, they talk, grade papers, get weekends and summers off. Some teachers get paid better per hour then doctors.
Fuck you.
For emphasis.

[ACA]

Teachers do get summers off.

They (as a majority) are paid for 9 months of work. That they are paid poorly and need to work a side job; attend workshops to improve their skills; or other reasons does not eliminate the fact that they have summers off. During their time off, they are free to take up another job. Or attend classes/seminars/workshops. Or sit on their ass. Or do whatever.

I'm not commenting on whether or not teachers are paid too highly or too lowly, or whether or not they're treated fairly or unfairly. But the fact that teachers get 90 days in a row off during warm months isn't a debate.

[saysmydoctor]

Teachers do get summers off.

They (as a majority) are paid for 9 months of work. That they are paid poorly and need to work a side job; attend workshops to improve their skills; or other reasons does not eliminate the fact that they have summers off. During their time off, they are free to take up another job. Or attend classes/seminars/workshops. Or sit on their ass. Or do whatever.

I'm not commenting on whether or not teachers are paid too highly or too lowly, or whether or not they're treated fairly or unfairly. But the fact that teachers get 90 days in a row off during warm months isn't a debate.
If you're working a summer job, which a lot of teachers, along with professional development--that is not what I consider a summer vacation.

There's also the fact that they have to create and prepare lesson plans for the coming school year. And also the fact that teachers "last day of school" is not the last day of school for students and same as the first day of school. There is preparation before a school year starts and "wrapping up" so to speak when it ends. When people say they have summers off, the implication is they do nothing.

And that is largely untrue.

[Love As Arson]

I think the kids in the class should get a say in whether or not a teacher is fired.

[<*)))><]

Fuck you.
Im getting a teaching degree and this has to be the easiest degree ever. Well next to Canadian studies

[joeag1985]

Nope.

[joeag1985]

I think the kids in the class should get a say in whether or not a teacher is fired.

That would be interesting..

[FueledByFrodo]

Those are great benefits for one of the easiest jobs available, they talk, grade papers, get weekends and summers off. Some teachers get paid better per hour then doctors.
I third the sentiment of "Fuck you."

Teachers do get summers off.

They (as a majority) are paid for 9 months of work. That they are paid poorly and need to work a side job; attend workshops to improve their skills; or other reasons does not eliminate the fact that they have summers off. During their time off, they are free to take up another job. Or attend classes/seminars/workshops. Or sit on their ass. Or do whatever.

I'm not commenting on whether or not teachers are paid too highly or too lowly, or whether or not they're treated fairly or unfairly. But the fact that teachers get 90 days in a row off during warm months isn't a debate.
Which, unless they find a summer job, they have to make last for 12 months.

[<*)))><]

Using Wisconsin as an example, the teacher makes about $56k with $25k in benefits yearly.
For 9 months, it is a hell of a deal.