Readers React: Who really won the tenure case?

Re “Vergara is a win for students,” Opinion, June 11

No tenure. No seniority. Lower salaries because of furloughs. Larger classes. Endangered pensions. Evaluations based on unreliable test scores.

Such are the conditions that Los Angeles Unified School District Supt. John Deasy lays on the people who teach our children, and after a ruling that invalidates California’s teacher protection laws, he has the nerve to call his implementation of the measures he supports a “privilege.”

Small wonder that those “highly competent and effective teachers” he likes to cite gave him such a resounding vote of no-confidence last year.

Daniel D. Victor, Los Angeles

At last, the needs of children are taking priority over the tenure and seniority system.

Having taught in L.A. Unified for 10 years (as a training teacher for UCLA students and later as a substitute teacher and then as a part-time teacher for the gifted program in elementary schools), I understand and respect the need for some measure of job security. But this must not be at the expense of the children in the district.

In 1955, three years of service were required to gain tenure. Sixteen months is far too soon to predict how well a teacher will perform in the future.

The classroom provides a window of opportunity for us as a nation to prepare the next generation. To pass up this opportunity is criminal.

Arlene B. Glazman, Los Angeles