Comments on: Inner-city schools lose young teachers

By: Tony G. Rocco

Tony G. Rocco — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:37:10 +0000

Layoffs are just one cause of losing young teachers. According to a 2003 report, about half leave in less than 5 years. Jonathan Kozol believes it’s because of No Child Left Behind’s reaquirement that teachers teach to the test rather than develop a more organic relationship with their students. Urban and high-poverty schools are the most impacted. See the following article for info: http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/politics/No-Child-Left-Behind–Hunger-Strike-and-Contention.html

Best wishes,

Tony

By: Tracy W

Tracy W — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:12:24 +0000

Isn’t that what we want…for our most experienced teachers to go and teach at the schools that need them most?

Actually I want the most effective teachers, which is an important difference.

And I think that the principal of a school is better placed to know what counts as an effective teacher for that school than someone further away. (Of course this leaves the problem of which principals to hire, as there’s a difference between having access to knowledge and being able to make use of it).

By: allen

allen — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:42:10 +0000

Management can be abusive where the supply of labor is abundant and individual employees easily replaceable. There’s nothing to curb bullying management then and perhaps it’s even in management’s interest to be abusive ignoring the propensity of some people to act thuggish when they can.

My guess is that where those conditions don’t apply you’ll see relatively fewer complaints or instances of managerial abuse. Unions are a way to artificially increase the value of employees by creating a labor monopoly.

In the days before unions got governmental protection for their monopolies they enforced their monopolies by violence or the threat of violence. The underlying value of the employee hasn’t changed, they’re still interchangeable and abundant, but now they can make credible threats.

Yes, they are. Where strong unions exist, a history of abusive management inevitably existed beforehand. Unions were, and are, the solution to that.

I’m sure all the Teamsters who were screwed out of their pension benefits by their union officials might have something to say about the value of unions.

By the way, in case the first couple of paragraphs were a bit too oblique, unions prove the low value of the employees.

By: Ragnarok

Ragnarok — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 04:37:18 +0000

“Where strong unions exist, a history of abusive management inevitably existed beforehand.”

Such blanket statements are invariably suspect.

It’s quite true that management has often been extremely abusive; see, for example, Upton Sinclair’s Jungle. In such cases the birth of unions was necessary – but now, in many cases, the union has become the abuser.

Why should they be allowed to continue? Surely you’re against abuse, no matter by whom?

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:54:03 +0000

Gee, unions are marvelous, aren’t they!

Yes, they are. Where strong unions exist, a history of abusive management inevitably existed beforehand. Unions were, and are, the solution to that.

By: Bill Leonard

Bill Leonard — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:25:24 +0000

“We can’t afford to lose good folks, no matter what their age or level of experience.”

You’re right. Now, tell that to the union leadship.

Yes. Unions are a very large part of the problem. They seem to have no solutions, other than ‘trust us,’ and ‘give us more money.’

Bill

By: Rusha Sams

Rusha Sams — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:42:01 +0000

Inner city schools lose veteran and new teachers quite often, not just because funding is cut. Some teachers don’t want to teach inner city but take jobs to “get their foot in the door,” so to speak. When they are eligible to transfer, they do. Others prove to be ineffective with inner city students, so when schools reconstitute, some teachers are “let go” regardless of experience. The key is to mentor all teachers, provide effective professional devlopment, monitor closely, and support. Then if tough decisions have to be made, teachers need to know why their services are longer appropropriate for students in inner city schools, and occasionally, at any schools. I hope that good teachers who are “let go” due to budgetary restraints are hired somewhere. We can’t afford to lose good folks, no matter what their age or level of experience.

By: Bill Leonard

Bill Leonard — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:44:46 +0000

Interesting: “…they have a right to the position” not “they want to be here”, or “they’ve earned the position”, but the union gives them a “right” to the job.

Gee, unions are marvelous, aren’t they!

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:30:19 +0000

two separate issues:
a) which teachers get payoff notices
b) which teachers get aligned with a school’s mission

Are younger teachers at locke more protected since Locke has a separate union and therefore not subjected to displacement from LAUSD schools outside of Locke/Green Dot (in fact if Green Dot runs itself well, those teachers might not even be subject to layoff.

By: Teacher

Teacher — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:47:41 +0000

Agreed that it’s terrible that LAUSD is losing some of its best and brightest. I know several of them personally and I’m devastated as are they.

However, let’s resist the urge to vilify veteran teachers. Yes, disorganization can result from staff turnover. However, the teachers who are being displaced from jobs at the big district and local district level were originally promoted because, for the most part, they were excellent and experienced teachers.

Isn’t that what we want…for our most experienced teachers to go and teach at the schools that need them most?