You are way off base with your
”
opinion
”
on teacher tenure. Sure, increasing the time frame for
evaluating a new teacher from two to five years for tenure sounds
practical on the surface, but ultimately this will drive
prospective teachers from going into the field. In turn, we will
lose many qualified people to other professions.
Editor,
You are way off base with your “opinion” on teacher tenure. Sure, increasing the time frame for evaluating a new teacher from two to five years for tenure sounds practical on the surface, but ultimately this will drive prospective teachers from going into the field. In turn, we will lose many qualified people to other professions.
Currently, a teacher is evaluated eight to ten times during the two-year tenure process, and it is only then where tenure is “recommended” not just given to a teacher. Also, just like in business, if a teacher does meet the five-year tenure requirement (probation), where is the raise for quality job performance?
I believe that rather than have a lame proposal such as this, maybe we as California citizens should be pushing for smaller class sizes and more classroom resources so teachers actually have a chance to educate students. A 36-to-1 student to teacher ratio is a larger problem than that of evaluating a teacher for a few extra years. You can make it 10 years for tenure for all I care, but it won’t resolve the real problem. That problem is there is not enough money allocated per student to make them successful. There now, there is my “opinion.”
Jason Murphy, via e-mail
