Am I the only Californian for Yes on 74?

[Larissa238]

I think that increasing the length of time for teachers to be approved is a good thing, and can help to improve the quality of teaching. I have had permanent science teachers who couldn't do a dilution, who tried to teach an AP class and everyone in the class failed the AP exam. Eventually (it took years) she got fired. If she had a longer time before she became permanent, maybe this would not have happened.

I want to be a teacher, and I would not mind this being in effect when I start teaching (next year).

I know that the government has a lot to do with the poor quality of our schools, don't get me wrong. But I also think that this measure could help a little, too.

[sepia_steel]

1. Things need fixing

but I sure as hell don't trust ahnold to do it.

[Larissa238]

2. I know that this comes from him...

But this one seems like it is a good thing. It can make our schools better.. I dont see how he would have a big impact on this one.

[JDPriestly]

11. Look at the California Secretary of State site on Prop. 74

It compares the number of states who require 5 years before giving teachers the right to a hearing before dismissal. You will find that most states require fewer years. The two-year tenure rule is a just one small benefit that we can offer to draw good teachers to California.

I would not encourage you or any other young person to become a teacher in this country. You will barely earn enough to live on, you will not be able to buy a house in any California city, you will be the target of disdain and criticism for everything that is wrong in the country and, if Prop. 74 passes, you will live in fear of the principal of your school and of every half-wit parent who blames you for the parent's undisciplined child's failures. Don't become a teacher.

Also, don't vote for Prop. 74. It gives too much power to principals. It takes longer than two years to get your feet on the ground as a teacher. You'll see if you do make the mistake of becoming a teacher. Most bad teachers get discouraged and quit. The rest of them get fired. It takes time, but the process is fair, and they get fired. We don't need Prop. 74. Trust me, if you do become a teacher, if you do invest years of your life preparing to be a teacher and maintaining your status as a teacher, you will want that little assurance that you will get a fair hearing if some vindictive person who doesn't like your politics or the way you comb your hair or your religion or your first name, whatever, wants to fire you.

Besides, a large proportion of teachers are going to be leaving the profession in the next few years, and it won't be that easy to replace them. The two-year tenure rule is a freebie the State of California can offer new teachers at a time when money is short. Vote No on Prop. 74. And, no, I'm not a teacher.

[ourbluenation]

3. I'm urging you to vote no on 74 and here's why...

ok - I cut and pasted it cuz I'm lazy today but, yeah, everything this says...

Proposition 74 is unnecessary.

There is already a system in place to fire teachers who are not performing in the classroom. Existing law allows teachers to be fired for unsatisfactory performance, unprofessional conduct, criminal acts, dishonesty and conduct unfit for association with children, no matter how long they’ve been on the job.

It is unnecessary because even now, no teacher has a guaranteed job. This proposition is misleading about how teachers’ jobs work. Right now, after two years, all that teachers get is the right to a hearing before they are fired.

And this proposition is unnecessary because it is so poorly drafted that it will actually make it more difficult to get rid of teachers who are not doing their job.

Proposition 74 is ineffective.

It is ineffective because it does nothing to improve student learning or deal with the real problems facing our schools. It won’t reduce class sizes, buy up-to-date textbooks for students, or provide quality teacher training. Furthermore, it would increase administrative expenses, costing school districts tens of millions of dollars to implement.

Recently education experts at Stanford University said that they know of no evidence to show that lengthening the probation period for new teachers has any impact on student achievement or teacher quality. Instead of punishing teachers, we should focus on proven reforms such as providing mentoring programs and quality training for new teachers.

Governor Schwarzenegger promised real education reform, but instead he offers us Proposition 74 while he cuts billions of dollars in funding to our schools.

Finally, Proposition 74 is unfair.

This proposition unfairly singles out teachers as the problem in our public schools, when many classrooms are badly under funded and students are denied the basic resources they need to learn.

It is unfair to teachers because it takes away their right to a hearing before they are fired. It doesn’t solve the problems facing our schools, but creates new ones by driving good teachers away.

And this proposition is unfair because it extends a teacher’s probation period to five years, longer than all but one other state in the country! This will make it even more difficult to recruit and retain high-quality teachers in California.

San Francisco Chronicle editorial writer, Louis Freedberg said Proposition 74 “makes no sense at all.” I wholeheartedly agree with him! At a time when we will need more than 100,000 new teachers to meet the needs of our students over the next decade, it makes no sense to enact a law that will guarantee that we will never have enough qualified teachers to meet the demand.

If we truly care about education reform, this poorly crafted, nonsensical, short-sighted proposition must be defeated. I trust you will join with me and vote no on Proposition 74.

[Larissa238]

8. Those are some good points...

I am not one of those people who dont change my mind. These are some good points, and I will take these into consideration. I am reconsidering it now... thanks!

[Bob3]

4. remember who has proposed this.

These people are not the friends of public education. Their agenda is to undercut and undermine public education so government money can be given to Religious and private schools because public education "doesn't work and teacher only want the two months off anyway".

Maybe, if this was part of a genuine effort to improve public education, it could be a good thing, but where are the studies to prove it, where is the debate? Nowhere - what we have is typical GOP gibberish being spewed at maximum volume.

[goclark]

5. I hope you are the only Californian voting YES on 74

Trust me, I am very familiar with the Educational System in California.

Some of the BEST educators came in under the old rules,next to no time to become permanent.

We need to get TEACHERS to come into the urban areas that really care about the children!

Arnold needs to go back to school and learn how to say CALIFORNIA before he can tell anybody how to run the system.

NO ON 74!

[Larissa238]

7. I know other people who are voting yes

and some of them are teachers.

[goclark]

15. I still say NO on 74

I was a teacher and I am still in touch with the system.

Do they really believe that Arnold is doing this in the best interest of teachers?

He is doing it to get back at the Teacher's Unions, trust me.
Now many teachers and Administrators see the Union as having high dues and not caring about the children.

I can tell you this, they care more than Arnold!

Most wealthy Regressives have their children in private schools. They have left the public school to the poor and lower middle class.

No...

This is the same as "No Child Left Behind - California style."

Trust me, if Arnold is for it, be against it.


Enough did not listen when he got elected.

His wife, A Democrat, made people think that he would be more of a Democrat than a Republican.

WRONG!

[Larissa238]

21. Good points

My teachers seem to be for it, but everyone is convincing me to vote no on it....

I may change my mind here soon!

[feminazi]

6. i voted no

teachers already have longer probation periods than police and firefighters. i don't see the logic in that.

i also heard a caller to bernie ward's show last week say that every time a teacher changes districts, the 2 year probation period applies all over again. (since you plan on being a teacher maybe you know if this is correct or not).) the caller was the wife of a teacher. after 13 years, he moved to a new district and had to go thru the 2 year probationary period.

it's a fallacy that teachers cannot be fired after the 2 year probationary period. re the teacher you mentioned: maybe the administrators just didn't do their jobs the way they should have?

[Larissa238]

10. I went to a California Distinguished School

and yet had horrible teachers. I also had some spectacular ones. The administration of my school was determined to get some good teachers, but some teachers can fake it for the first part. To me, faking it for 2 years is easier than for 5 years.

[Sandpiper]

9. I hope so

The drafters of this legislation are not friends of public education and do not have its best interests at heart.

[unrepuke]

12. There are two of you. There's Arnold.

[Beaverhausen]

19. There are also all those who think it's neat to have the Terminator...

...as governor.

NO ON 74!!!

[tularetom]

13. Cops, firemen, street and park workers, file clerks

and all other local government workers in CA serve a probationary period which in most cases lasts for six or twelve months. After completion of probation they achieve permanent status from which it is almost impossible to fire them, particularly if they have union representation. I might agree that teachers should serve a longer probation than other public employees (well, maybe cops should be on probation for 2 years) but in my opinion 5 years is excessive. Why not do away with tenure or permanent status altogether?

[longship]

20. Tenure is important

If you think we have problems finding teachers now, just eliminate tenure and see how big the problem can get.

Tenure is essential. No teacher wants their jobs and their careers to be in continuous jeopardy. There is already little enough reason to become a teacher. Grueling, long work days. Constant challenges. Low pay. Low public esteem. Large classroom sizes. It's a huge burden.

Without tenure, all these things will get worse because the number of qualified teachers will plummet.

[goclark]

23. Not only is it excessive

it is not meaningful.


A good administrator can usually tell within 12 months what kind of teacher is in each classroom, the bad apples pop out quickly.

I think tenure is still important but not Arnold's way.

Keep Arnold OUT of public education please.

By the way, he lives in Brentwood I believe. There is a lovely Public school in the area.

Do his children attend? Huum

[bikeboy]

14. Am I the only Californian for Yes on 74?

I strongly disagree with 74.

The real problem is in the funding of education here in California(California has the highest achievement standards in the country and is 44th in spending per student ). A teacher that is underperformed can be dealt with effectively by an administration that is competent. Inadequate funding leads to a decline in qualified teachers and administration officials and an overall decline in enrollment and in performance.

I think if you were to look back at pre-prop 13 when CAlifornia schools were #1 in the country and the darling in everyones eye, you will find that the number of private schools then vs today, is quite a different picture. In reality it is a clear picture of the privatization of public education which affords an education for those that can afford it, i.e. private school, and those that can't, i.e. underfunded public schools.

I have spent a great deal of time in the public school world the last 6 years. When my kids started school I decided that if I really wanted to know what was going on in public school I had to see how the money flowed in the district. So I went and became a member of PTA and of my School Site Council, I represent my PTA Council on a Citizens Oversight Committee for a 540 Mil. prop 39 Bond. I have sat through numerous school board meetings and sub-committee meetings and continually see our district have to make the most painful and unbearable cuts in programs due to the lack of proper funding by the State and Federal Government.

I am a High School drop out and I want more for my boys than what I gave myself. To do that I became involved and it has been a real eye opener.

The problem is not Teachers!

It's proper funding!

If 74 passes you can kiss your job good bye.

Sorry to be so pessimistic but Arnoodle does not have your best interest at heart.

[Larissa238]

17. I know he does not have my best intrest

in mind. So you think he will blame all the future problems on this, and not on funding?

[goclark]

25. Excellent response!

[newyawker99]

30. Hi bikeboy!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[longship]

16. A former math teacher says 74 is not a good solution.

The whole purpose of tenure is so that teachers can be more or less secure in their jobs and not have to be in continual "employed at will" status. Two years probation accomplishes this.

There is one very important facet of tenure that the Pro-74 forces do not talk about. A probationary teacher is at risk for being "non-reelected" every single year of their probationary period. Some districts issue "non-reelections" every single year to every single probationary teacher. This is a very stressful situation for the teachers because if the non-reelection is acted on, the teacher's career is in serious and permanent jeopardy.

Every time a teacher changes districts they lose their tenure. This means that they take a cut in pay, possibly a significant cut, because of probationary status. A five year tenure would be punitive for no other reason than they made a rational and quite common career decision.

A tenured teacher can be fired. But the Pro-74 forces do not want you to know that either. Incompetent teachers, even if tenured, are subject to disciplinary action and if they do not act, non-reelection.

Two years of probation is plenty of time for a teacher's value to be determined. The review process during this time is very thorough as anybody who has been through it will attest. It does somewhat interfere with the education, but that is a small price to pay to insure that our teachers are qualified and capable. Extending this to five years is not only unnecessary, but puts an undue burden on the teachers and the already overworked administrators.

A tenured teacher is freed of this annual burden and is able to devote time to the students. They are still reviewed but less often and with less scrutiny. That situation is subject to change if parents and/or students are complaining about the teacher or if the administrators observe problems. In short, there is always recourse to take action against a bad teacher, tenured or not.

Prop 74 would put thousands of good teachers at risk to hold a few bad ones to an accounting which already exists in the current system. It is a nightmare for all teachers. Please consider voting "No" on it.

Thanks, for paying attention to this and for posting your opinion.

A former H.S. math teacher.

[Larissa238]

22. Starting to consider voting no

One of the reasons that I posted this was to understand why everyone was saying no to it.

[Greyhound]

18. Hurting the teachers to make better teachers? This is just

a re:puke: strategy to further eviscerate the public system so the corporations can get their mitts on all that education money. If you really want better teachers how about a radical idea like paying them enough to live so you can attract people other than 'homemakers', new grads, and people that 40K is the best they could do? Then you could strip funding from the administration and get it into the classrooms. Have you seen the LAUSD admin building? It's a fucking palace, while the schools themselves are literally falling down.
Don't fall for the scam!

[Larissa238]

28. And principals get waay more than the teachers, too...

its sad how they treat teachers... I just want to do whatever I can to change it.

[ourbluenation]

31. The principals are the supervisors...supervisors get paid more everywher.

For the sake of disclosure I should state that my hubby is a veteran teacher.

VOTE NO ON 74!

[Larissa238]

34. I meant disproportionately more...

at least from some of the schools I know

[WI_DEM]

24. if it's proposed by Arnold then I have my doubts it's to help

teachers or education.

[nini]

26. Teachers can be fired now.. but it takes a consensus and a real reason

If your principal decides he doesn't like you for some reason you can't get canned with no protection. Is that what you want?

[alittlelark]

27. Yes, you are the only one (I hope).

[longship]

29. The real problems -- some personal experiences.

The following lists some information from my last year teaching in a CA high school. (I am now retired from teaching and am working in the Linux computer industry.)

All ninth graders were pushed through mainstream (academic) algebra classes whether they were qualified or not.

Failure rate in algebra was over 75%.

Campus crime rate was very high.

Average math class size was 40. Many classes were over 40 students.

Four students from my classes were expelled--two for incidents in my own classroom. This was not uncommon in 9th grade algebra.

They had removed all student lockers from the school. Students have to carry backpacks with all their books that total 40-50 pounds or more for all of them. Students therefore do not bring books to class making it near impossible to teach subjects like math that require continuous drilling. I tried to get around this with hand-outs. But administration frowned on hand-outs and instructed teachers to make sure that students brought their books, a near impossible task. I believe that there is a CA law limiting what students can be required to carry. This year the situation is coming to a head because parents and students are close to open rebellion on the issue. The adminstration continues to ignore the problem and demand that students bring all their books to class, probably in violation of law.

Counselling staff was hopelessly overworked. Many counsellors just cycled problem students right back into the classroom counter to contractual obligations to *not* do that. In other words, the rules of the system to guarantee teacher and student safety were breaking down.

The year after I left, algebra failure rate increased to over 90%.

This year, long tenured teachers are sharing classrooms. Many teachers have no classroom at all but move from classroom to classroom every period. With the size of the campus, there isn't sufficient time to pass between classrooms and make the necessary preparations for the next class. This has a severe impact on quality of education.

Class sizes have increased even more. Amazingly, the district attitude is that this has no impact on quality of education and continues to trumpet this opinion in response to complaints.

The conditions at many California schools is similar. Much of this is a direct result of No Child Left Behind. The teachers call NCLB "Blame the Teacher", a not inaccurate tag.

Arnold's response to these problems is to attempt to kill tenure and blame the teachers.

Please vote No on 74.

[Larissa238]

35. Good reasons! I have changed my mind!

[sendero]

32. Arnold seems to have...

.. a typically right-wing view that everyone else is the problem.

If he'd look in the mirror, perhaps he'd could admit to himself that he cannot deliver on the promises he made to get elected governor of California, and that fault lies solely within himself.

[xxqqqzme]

33. how many jobs have U had

that REQUIRED U 2 work for SIXTY months before U were considered a permanent employee? entitled to benefits? vacation?

U want 2 B a teacher??? What happens if U R fired after ONLY 58 months? NO recourse - you've just been played by the rethugs & steroid boy!

[LunaC]

36. What Boxer says about 74

Proposition 74 is an effort to divert attention from the real problems facing California's public schools by turning teachers into scapegoats. The initiative does nothing to improve California's public schools -- and could actually harm them by making it harder to recruit good teachers.

Schools in California can already dismiss teachers found to be deficient during their first two years of service without a hearing. In fact, every local school has a system in place to deal with struggling teachers. At a time when we should be encouraging people to choose a career in teaching, Prop. 74 will hurt those recruitment efforts by not affording due process to those in the teaching profession who do so much for California's children. Vote NO on 74.

[1932]

37. I sure hope so.