Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathji
I do admit that there are problems with getting rid of bad teachers, because they have protection, but I am just thinking about this from a practical perspective.
How do people who are bad employees still have jobs? Shouldn't every one of them be unemployed? Do these people wander the world moving from one job to another every 3 months when they get canned?
The reality of the situation is not everyone can be an above average employee, or even just average, some of them are going to flat out suck and they can be kept in a job because it is harder/more expensive for management to fire and replace them than it is to keep them on the job.
My point is, you can't expect much deviation from this pattern from any field, so accepting that some teachers are bad at their jobs is really just a fact of life. This is just personal experience, but in the 12 combined years that all my kids have been in school, ranging from K to Grade 12, there has only been one teacher who I would have considered as bad enough that he should lose his job. Maybe that's an acceptable ratio?
|
An advantage of the private sector is layoffs occur during recession and better personnel are kept. If x% of teachers were laid off every x years it would allow new teachers into the system in a similar manner to the private sector.
As to what these teachers who are laid off would do? They would be the under employed substitutes instead of the be ambitious teachers in that role.
I think the school board and teachers union system is severely broken and from the outside looks soul sucking to be a part of. That's where any improvement / vitriol should be directed.