In a response to C-J, Brent McKim reminded readers of the possibility that a "bad" principal might fire a "good" teacher, and that would be bad. True enough. Apparently, McKim can tell which is which, but doesn't think Berman can. McKim wrote,
The predictable characterization that JCTA is trying to protect "bad" teachers is wrong. We are trying to protect a fair process that eliminates ineffective teachers while protecting good teachers from "bad" administrators... A fair process that eliminates ineffective teachers while protecting good teachers from arbitrary termination is truly in the best interest of studentsToday the New York Post reminds us of the other side of the story. In this case, a tenured teacher enjoyed so much protection that the time and resources necessary to remove the teacher were simply ridiculus.
This from the New York Post:
May 27, 2008 -- It took more than four years and $253,000 for the city's Department of Education to get rid of just one tenured teacher in 2007, according to data obtained by The Post.
Former PS 197 teacher David Salkin, 56, had taught for only five years in Queens before administrators accumulated enough documentation asserting he couldn't control his classroom - and in 2005, bumped him to the department's "rubber room," where educators get paid to do nothing while under investigation, records show.
It then took another 21/2 years for the school system to cut him loose - while Salkin, who had earned tenure after his third year teaching, collected a total of $169,000 in salary.
Salkin's case is just one example of what officials call the needlessly long and arduous process for removing inadequate teachers...
No comments:
Post a Comment