Teacher Of The Year laid off!!!!

So I am sure you are all aware of the collapse of our education system, this has been going on for some time but seems like its getting worse every day.

Sacramento, California (CNN) A California woman who was named her school district's "Teacher of the Year" has a new title -- "job seeker." The district laid off Michelle Apperson along with thousands of other educators across the state. California has a budget crisis and this is how officials are dealing with it. Apperson's students wrote letters to express their sadness at her leaving. The layoffs were done based on seniority. "It hurts on a personal level because I really love what I do. But professionally, politically, economically, I get why it happens." Apperson taught at the Sutterville Elementary School in Sacramento for nine years. Some teachers may get a reprieve before the end of the summer. No word if she could be one of them.

www.kmvt.com...

The state of our education system is in shambles, don't think so go spend a hour with a high school age kid and ask them about world events that take place outside of reality TV. We are loosing our most valuable resource and that is a good education. Please this November when you go to the polls vote for education.

Sounds like a way to get shot of those who realy teach.

They keep only those who follow the agenda.

If I'm not mistaken, she was laid off because of union senority rules which had nothing to do with agendas or school district management. Had the union been concerned with educational benefits to the children they would have allowed for the dismissal of poorer performing teachers.

I don't mind spending money on education, but the money doesn't go towards getting a better education for the kids. The money goes for the interests of the unions. Every few years we're reminded that spending on education has gone up dramatically, but performance hasn't. I believe union rules encourage that.

reply to post by Ecto1
This teacher must be in the teacher's union.

Seniority is more important than merit, apparently.

reply to post by Ecto1


How about voting for someone who refuses to negotiate with the insane unions.

Pay zero attention to their "demands" and instead focus on merit and reward those who are actually good at their jobs accordingly.

Originally posted by charles1952
If I'm not mistaken, she was laid off because of union senority rules which had nothing to do with agendas or school district management.

Your are mistaken....

Unions look to preserve teachers with seniority and to oppose local legislatures looking to save costs by eliminating teachers who have more experience and make more money in favor of fresh grads.

Sacramento legislature abandoned the union agreement back in December so that they could do just this...get rid of the teachers that have put in thier time and make more money.

No offense...but reality is the precise opposite of what you claimed.

See here...
Teachers union sues Sacramento City schools over seniority rights in layoffs

Read more here: www.sacbee.com...=cpy

reply to post by Indigo5

Dear Indigo5,

Betting on me to be wrong is usually a very safe bet. But if the firing was not based on union seniority rules I'm confused by the sentence in the middle of the OP's clip:

The layoffs were done based on seniority.

Could you show me where I'm going wrong?

With respect,
Charles1952

California ranks at the bottom of states for public education - anywhere from mid thirties to mid forties depending on which study it is. Laying off more teaches certainly isn't going to reverse that trend.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Dear Indigo5,

Betting on me to be wrong is usually a very safe bet. But if the firing was not based on union seniority rules I'm confused by the sentence in the middle of the OP's clip:

The layoffs were done based on seniority.

Could you show me where I'm going wrong?

With respect,
Charles1952

Well now I am not sure that betting on you to be wrong is a safe bet. I missed that in the OP...but did find a battle in the courts in Sacramento where the local gov wanted the freedom to layoff without regard to seniority and it looked they were granted that freedom in another article...

Not going to have time to research further...but definitely rethinking it and you might have very well been right, let me know if you find more.

BTW This was the article that seemed to confirm that Sacramento wasn't abiding by "seniority" in layoffs..

Layoffs by Seniority Contested

But state law permits few exceptions to layoffs based on seniority, and the administrative law judges ruled that San Francisco Unified had failed to make a persuasive case for bypassing seniority, and that Sacramento City had partially done so, for a majority of teachers ­and not for counselors at only five of seven schools that the district sought to protect.

So Sacramento got the OK to disregard seniority with the exception of counselors etc.?
savesacramentopublicschools.org...

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Ecto1

 

This teacher must be in the teacher's union.

Seniority is more important than merit, apparently.

Merit or ability has nothing in common with Teacher Unions.....it's all seniority.

If you want to get mad and depressed at the same time, watch Waiting for Superman

reply to post by Indigo5

Dear Indigo5,

Thank you for that link to the article. I really hate to say it, but I got the feeling from it that this is going to be out of the hands of the administrators and the unions. It looks like a plaything for the lawyers now.

State law is emphatic that teacher layoffs should be by seniority. However, there are two exceptions, one narrow and one broad: The specific exception permits teachers with special training and experience to teach specific courses or courses of study when there are no senior teachers with the requisite training and experience. The other allows deviating from seniority in order in order to protect students’ fundamental constitutional right to equal educational opportunity.

I'm guessing that the second exception won't fly, I wouldn't buy it. But maybe in the "special training and experience" exception? But it looks like there are a lot of hoops to jump through for that one.

And we rely on public education for our children.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by pavil


Extraordinary film. Teacher unions are more complicated than left/right or a soundbite. I am fiercly for eliminating the blanket protections that Unions afford teachers with seniority, whilst at the same time I am a strong advocate for teachers unions being able to negotiate pay and class sizes.

In that context I was against Walker in Wisconsin since his initiative was simply pay, pension, benefits focused and had no aim toward reform.

We need to pay teachers like rockstars and as it stands most entry level teachers make less than the janitors working in those buildings.

Pay teachers like you'd pay doctors and the labor market will have the best and brightest fiercly competing for a chance to teach our children.

Deride teachers and hammer thier already paultry pay and education suffers as do our kids and our economic prospects.

Unions need reform and President Obama has even looked to do the same as Waiting for Superman suggests..

Here is a link to a teachers/union/solidarity etc site bashing Obama for his recent reform initiatives..

THE 165 WASHINGTON, DC public school teachers terminated for poor evaluations on July 23 may be the first victims of the Obama reform agenda. The teachers were fired because of low scores on the DC school system’s new evaluation procedure — one which ties teacher evaluations to student scores on standardized tests.(1)

The Washington experience is not an aberration. Rather, it is an omen of developments to come as states compete with each other to gut union rules, replace unionized public schools with privately managed charter schools, and extend the Bush-era emphasis on standardized test scores as the primary measure of student achievement and a school’s success.

President Obama disappointed many teachers around the country this past spring with the announcement of his Race to the Top (RTTT) program. Touted by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan as a national education reform project that will finally provide high-quality teachers and schools to every child, Race to the Top has won plaudits from business leaders, Republican politicians, and increasingly anti-union Democrats.

www.solidarity-us.org...

It is not as simple as left/right or a soundbite.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
Sounds like a way to get shot of those who realy teach.

They keep only those who follow the agenda.

Yep... the agenda of the union which states that performance doesn't mean jack squat. This article is sad commentary which fully supports one of the primary reasons unions suck and this country should be right to work across the board, no exceptions allowed.

Originally posted by Indigo5

We need to pay teachers like rockstars and as it stands most entry level teachers make less than the janitors working in those buildings.

Pay teachers like you'd pay doctors and the labor market will have the best and brightest fiercly competing for a chance to teach our children.

One of my friends was a Teacher of the Year for High School in his district. He did coaching of football and oversaw the School Newspaper as well......... That was two years ago. He was laid off due to lack of seniority. It's not an isolated coinsurance according to him.

Problem is that Teacher Unions won't let paying for performance happen. They are actually against paying a teacher more for being a great teacher. I agree that "GOOD" teachers need to be paid like rockstars and that bad teachers be able to be let go. Once tenure hits, you can't get rid of a bad teacher. The whole system is set up to protect the teachers with the most seniority, not the best performing. In a real business, this would never happen.

reply to post by pavil


Oh...I agree on tenure. Performance based pay needs to happen. I was just pointing out that is exactly what Pres. Obama is trying to implement and the unions are pissed about it...and that Walker could care less about great teachers or tenure. His declared goal of stripping the union of collective bargaining rights was to be able to layoff teachers for budget purposes so he could spend that money elsewhere. Tenure wasn't even on the table.

Reform is needed...calling teachers lazy and overpaid and looking for ways to pay them LESS is not the answer.