Both articles provided talk about Teacher Tenure. In article one Brian Jones talks about how tenure does not hurt or affect students. Where as article two talks about ending teacher tenure in order to fire bad teachers. Tenure is a right that is built into their contract to protect them from being fired, just because. “Teacher tenure, and the related onerous and costly requirements for dismissing and ineffective teacher, have evolved into a system that almost completely insulates teachers from review, evaluation, or personnel decisions that would threaten their lifetime” (Article 2).
In article one, Brian Jones discusses that tenure is an important right for teacher to have. Jones goes against what David Welch, a big shot who funded a legal team in the Vergara case. Jones believes that tenure has nothing to do with over crowding or budget cuts. He states, “If teacher tenure is an important obstacle to achievement, Mississippi (with no teacher tenure) should have stellar schools and Massachusetts (with teacher tenure) should have failing ones. Instead, it’s the other way …show more content…
“Teacher tenure, and the related onerous and costly requirements for dismissing an ineffective teacher, have evolved into a system that almost completely insulates teachers from review, evaluation, or personnel decisions that would threaten their lifetime employment” (article 2). I believe that they don’t want to get rid of tenure but, want to find a way to let teachers who are not doing their jobs go. The article states that having bad teachers will harm both students and society. “Research shows that this results in serious harm both to individual students and to society, because a small number of grossly ineffective teachers are retained in our schools.” It also says that teachers “have an opportunity to participate in crafting a more balanced system that promotes world-class schools” (article
In article one, Brian Jones discusses that tenure is an important right for teacher to have. Jones goes against what David Welch, a big shot who funded a legal team in the Vergara case. Jones believes that tenure has nothing to do with over crowding or budget cuts. He states, “If teacher tenure is an important obstacle to achievement, Mississippi (with no teacher tenure) should have stellar schools and Massachusetts (with teacher tenure) should have failing ones. Instead, it’s the other way …show more content…
“Teacher tenure, and the related onerous and costly requirements for dismissing an ineffective teacher, have evolved into a system that almost completely insulates teachers from review, evaluation, or personnel decisions that would threaten their lifetime employment” (article 2). I believe that they don’t want to get rid of tenure but, want to find a way to let teachers who are not doing their jobs go. The article states that having bad teachers will harm both students and society. “Research shows that this results in serious harm both to individual students and to society, because a small number of grossly ineffective teachers are retained in our schools.” It also says that teachers “have an opportunity to participate in crafting a more balanced system that promotes world-class schools” (article