Protecting teachers

Re “Timeout on tenure,” editorial, Dec. 11

The Times once again jumps on the blame-teachers bandwagon by encouraging an end to tenure.

Tenure laws keep a teacher from being fired without just cause. What’s wrong with that? Your editorial does acknowledge that there must be protections against vindictive firings, yet it fails to mention how exactly this could be accomplished without granting tenure.

Also, you neglect to mention that public schools are required by law to do what no other government agency, company, private school or charter school is willing to do: accept everyone who walks through their doors.

If The Times’ writers don’t think that’s a big deal, they should try it themselves.

Marlin Sobbota

Arcadia

--

A teacher’s position can become a political football because of principals who dislike independence.

Many teachers, including myself, participated in Williams vs. California, a class-action lawsuit aimed at ensuring equal educational opportunity for all California children. Without tenure, or a truly effective contract that protected teachers, many of us could have been fired for highlighting school practices such as charging children for school supplies or assessing fees to participate in school activities.

We do need an effective system to retrain or fire underperforming teachers, but simply giving that power to a principal or administrator may stifle independence and honest discussions about education. Our job is tough enough without having to worry about vindictive administrators.

Keith Ensminger

Merced