Proof that NYC's mayor wants to get rid of veteran teachers and their salaries and benefits:

[no_hypocrisy]

Only 58% of new teachers were granted tenure. Last year it was 97%.

The disparity of numbers dispels the Mayor's own premise that veteran teachers should yield to newer teachers as the latter have more energy, fresher ideas, more dynamics in the classroom. And if the newer teachers WERE "more valuable" to the public school system, shouldn't they be offered tenure to coax them to stay in the system instead of seeking private sector employment? Why turn away so many MVP's?

Because Bloomberg wants to blow up the public school system of New York City. He wants to get rid of the expense of teachers who have dedicated their lives and careers and won't protect the new recruits.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/ending_teachers_easy_ZAUWbKwvzsQv3qPmQFxwwJ

[midnight]

1. I'm not getting this. I thought tenure took years of work and other things.

How can new teachers be granted tenure? I'm also outraged that our experienced teachers are being pushed out the door.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. When I use the term "new teacher", it refers to a teacher who has a probationary

period of three years. After that term, you're either recommended or highly recommended to be granted tenure. Once you get tenure, you're on your way to becoming a veteran teacher.

My point: Mike Bloomberg painted veteran teachers as dry rot instead of experienced professionals who had honed their skills to teach, took more courses in order to effectively teach, and were more knowledgeable of their subject matter. By contrast, the Mayor extoled the virtues of "new" teachers who were full of energy and new ideas. (He kept harping on how the new teachers would be the first to be hired and the first to be fired due to budget issues.)

[midnight]

6. Thank you.... and yes I shared your observation as treating our experienced teachers as dry rot..

I suppose added value would be seen as dry rot also to this "Race to the top" mentality...

[dkf]

2. Why would the lack of tenure for new teachers mean veteran teachers are being pushed out?

That makes no sense.

[femmocrat]

5. They are creating fewer veterans.

Two or three years and you're out. Bring in a fresh crop of bright-eyed innocents. Happened to someone I know.

[YvonneCa]

7. Happened to someone I know...

...VERY well...too. ;)

[Smarmie Doofus]

11. Seems like they're ( the principals) operating under a quota.

It's not in writing but everyone I know is reporting tenure denials and/or terminations.

As always , the determination of who's a good teacher and who's not is laughably subjective. We lost a good guy ( probationary) this year 'cause of in-house politics . Really hard to watch that happen. (A lot harder for him.)


There's a lot of ugly fucking stuff going on in the name of Obama-style.... ugh... "reform."

[Smarmie Doofus]

10. Makes Dollars and 'Sense'.

People who are shuffled in and out make the payroll infinitely lighter ( more money for the insiders to divvy up) and make NO $$$ demands on the retirement system.

That's a huge chunk a' change a lot of people would like to get their hands on.

[robcon]

4. It's not "proof" of anything other than it's harder to get tenure in NYC.

n/t

[libguy_6731]

8. ^this

[Smarmie Doofus]

9. You have to plow thru 8 paragraphs to get to the point here:

>>>>>>In a perfect world, of course, there would be no tenure. No one should have a de facto lifetime employment guarantee.>>>>>>>>>

The hidden agenda resting comfortably atop a demonstrable falsehood.

Why do people on DU take this stuff (i.e. Murdochian " journalism") seriously? ( Not OP; some of the follow-up posters.)

It's Murdoch. *Rupert Murdoch*.