Second of two parts
Re “Is the Last Culver City Teacher Firing Irrelevant Data?”
Dateline Boston — Here is a thorny puzzle intended to mollify neutral observers of this week’s possibly landmark, possibly meaningless anti-tenured teacher court ruling:
In the 22 months since Supt. Dave LaRose’s arrival, cheerily chirping birds with no knowledge of Twitter have been tantalizingly tweeting from the treetops all day long along Irving Place.
Why?
Likely because traditionally cool relations between the School District administration and President David Mielke’s Teachers Union are bathed in bubbling bliss.
What makes this matchup intriguing is that historically they are natural rivals. Now they sincerely wear their arms around each other’s necks.
This is nirvana, a day once deemed impossible.
What does any of this have to do with this week’s teacher tenure ruling that finally could subtract bad teachers who, critics believe, have been unfairly protected, almost firing-proof, because of the tenure law?
Lives there a person who disagrees with the contention that bad teachers are the touchiest subject in the education universe?
Want to light up an argument?
Talk of firing bad teachers is equivalent to repeatedly rubbing a raw red rash with the paw of an overweight elephant.
Irritating in the extreme.
Understandable, though, because of pardonable professional pride.
Earlier, Mr. LaRose declined to reveal whether any problematic teachers have been eliminated in the past two school years?
Surely rotten eggs exist among the School District’s 350 teachers? One? Two? Three?
Their presence seems undeniable.
Rotten eggs poison the vine in every employment field on the planet where 350 earthlings are gathered, from the oldest profession to the loftiest moral field.
Why not say that one or two or three failed teachers have been axed in the last two years? Wouldn’t that show that the popular, much-hailed District administration is admirably alert?
Wouldn’t it trumpet enviable vigilance?
Wouldn’t it showcase the administration’s sensitivity toward students, validating their claim that students and their parents truly are first in their hearts?
