It seems that Hornak wants to live up to his self-description, as Republican ideologue. No need to pay any attention to facts -- just treat the argument as an evidence free zone.

Note that in the New York Sun [not exactly the liberal media], Andy Wolff [not exactly a liberal journalist] makes mincemeat of what Klein and Hornak would have you believe about tenure. If after five years in charge of New York City public schools, principals are not fulfilling the simple regulations regarding untenured teachers -- that they be observed six times a year, prior to the tenure decision -- exactly whose fault is that?

And even with this negligence, 1/3 of all new teachers never receive tenure.

But why let a few facts get in the way of an ideological prejudice?

I agree with Harold, it seems as though bloomberg and hornack are now scapegoating teachers because of bloomberg and klein's mismanagement of the NYC public schools.

The turnover rate for teachers in NYC is horrible, based largely on terrible working conditions (further exacerbated by the bumbling and mismanagement by the mayor and chancellor) and low salaries. Why would anyone in their right minds teach in NYC?

Tenure is not ruining the NYC school system, bloomberg and klein are and that will be the mayor's legacy.

First of all, let me say that I have not been impressed by Klein's leadership, although he has done a few things right. However, the standardized ciriculum has been a disaster, as have been a few of their other initiatives.

That said, you guys are attacking me in the usual partisan way. Attacking me as some right wing nut without even addrsssing my two points. For those of you with reading comprehension issues (obviously public schooled), those points were:

1. That tenure does not serve the children and only protects failing teachers, not allowing them to be replaced with new teachers who may be better equiped to handle disadvantaged children.

2. That Weingarten has totally changed her justification for tenure from a political reason to "its for the children."

Now, Tom and Harold give no reasons at all for continuing tenure, just dismiss me as a Bloomberg/Klein sycophant. If you did your research you'd know that is hardly the case.

Additionally, Tom brings up turnover rate for new teachers. I agree, we drive many good teachers out of the system for many reasons. That, however, does not justify protecting teachers that have been there for 10 years now and not getting the job done.

Three years is simply not long enough fo rmany teachers to get a fair chance to develop, but many principles are smart and refuse to take a chance. Some possibly good teachers get fired after 2-3 years so that the principle does not have to give them tenure and possibkly be stuck with a horrible teacher for years to come.

I have great respect for good teachers, none for burnouts and summer vacation junkies. Teachers who strive to be the best they can be should be rewarded. I have done some teaching in the past and hope to go back to it someday. I would never accept tenure if offered it.

There are so many flaws in the tenure system it can't be defended, as both my critics here prove. Eliminating it would give us a better teaching corp and eventually better education for the children. Remeber, this is for the children!!

Hornack, if you and the mayor  believed teacher tenure was a real problem in the NYC public schools and a very important part of the new, reorganization of the recent reorganization, then why didn't the mayor and chancellor put tenure the on the table in the most recent contract which has been negotiated until the end of the mayor's term in office and that the mayor deemed a successful and early negotiation of a city labor contract?

You know why, the mayor and chancellor know nothing about managing the public school system, the mayor knows nothing about labor negotiations, otherwise he would have made inroads on an issue he feels is very important and he is using the tenure issue and scapegoating teachers as a diversionary tactic to take attention away from his mismanagement and failures in the public school system.

The mayor is the liar and demagogue on this and many other issues in city govt.

I think she's made a valid defense of tenure rights for teachers. If you understand the school system, teachers and their unions regularly file grievances against management to protect students and themselves against being shortchanged further by the mayor and their bosses.

If you don't think teachers and students are being short changed by the mayor and chancellor, then explain why they both lied about the capital plan to build more classes and using the dropout rate to justify not building more classrooms. They both also promised to reduce the dropout rate, instead it's gone up and they use that fact not to reduce class size. If the schools were a private company and senior management projected futre losses instead of profits and earnings the management would be removed.

As to political activities, you should know that all politics are local and that many city jobs and promotions are tied into political activity. It follows that if a civil servant doesn't go along with the majority in their community and/or agency, without job protection their livelyhood would be in serious jeopardy. How much more simple can I make it? Stop demagoging about the very small percentage that abuse the system and help sell newspapers.

Teachers do not confer tenure upon themselves, it's granted by management.Fire the managers that gave the lousy teacher tenure.The problem is management not teachers.

Let's get rid of tenure for everyone, judges, cops, and other important mid and lower level govt. employees, let them serve at the pleasure of whoever is in charge at the moment and heaven forbid they disagree, we've already seen what the mayor has done to the honorable volunteers who served on the Educational Policy Panel when they disagreed with his flawed policies. A panel, as it exists now, of rubber stampers if ever there was one.

There would be far more damage than help from ending tenure. As I've said before hold management responsible for granting tenure, how does a bad teacher even last 3 years without notice?

OK Tom, it's clear you don't want to debate the merits of tenure. Just keep changing the subject and attacking Bloomberg, as if that really has anything to do with the issue at hand - how to fix the horrible public education system in this city.

Aaside from the fact that "tenure" does not exist for cops, judges and the like (they only have a union contract and are generally easier to fire than teachers), why can't you just stick to the issue of tenure for teachers? Are you that insecure about your belief in the system that you must continue to distract and only occassionally make arbitrary statements like:

"There would be far more damage than help from ending tenure."

Exactly how is that so? You don't engage on the subject at all. But I guess that is the way it is for you guys who really have no defense of the current system. Just protect the teacher at all cost, no matter how bad, and just shift all the blame to the idiot administrator who also isn't qualified to hold the job.

What if the administartors are already new but they are saddled with a bunch of teachers who really aren't qualified to be in the classroom? Don't you care that children are going to waste an entire year of their education with an unqualified teacher? Have you no compassion for these children?

It's obvious to me that you don't have a debatable issue, furthermore it appears you don't really know what's going on in the school system, much like the mayor and the chancellor.

Good luck with your next sound bite attack on civil servants.

Ending tenure in NYC? 

Looks like one more reason, besides salary, benefits, physical environment, parental involvement and safety to choose work in a suburban school rather than NYC.  Like you needed one more reason, you talented young teachers looking for jobs.

Thanks Nicolo for another silly defense of tenure. The fact of the matter is there are over 1.1 million kids in the city school system. How many kids do you suppose are in Nassau county? 50,000? 75,000?

There just aren't that many teaching jobs in the burbs. If there were, tenure wouldn't be what makes the teachers leave nyc.

We also should consider that many of the schools in Nassau are in places like Hempstead and Freeport, neighborhoods with mnay of the same problems we have in the city schools.

Teachers take the jobs here because this is where the opportunities are. That will not change regardless of what changes we make to the union contract. And if we ever succeed in making the schools safe and orderly the number of quality teachers looking to work here will increase.

As for Tom, it's clear we can't have a debate if you don't actually stick to the issue. I made many claims about how ending tenure would better education for the children. You did nothing to either disprove my assertions or defend the current system, other than to say "it's good."

Since you are so interested in education, I would have hoped that part of your education would have included basic debate or argumentation skills. I guess that is too much to have hoped for. Sorry.

You are totally clueless about the teaching profession and why people pursue it and work in large urban school systems. I don't have to defend tenure, I just pointed out why it's important, if you choose to ignore those points, fine.

One thing is certain, this mayor and chancellor have damaged the school system far more than a handful of rotten tenured teachers. Tenure in the overall scheme of things obviously is not really an issue or the mayor would have put it on the table in his super secret contract negotiations, which btw, is a topic for another debate, how the mayor conducts city business in private without public input.

Hornack, maybe you could explore other more important issues that affect learning outcomes of public school children in NYC instead of beating up on hardworking, poorly paid NYC teachers. Of course you would have to know a more about NYC schools in order to do that.

Sorry Tom, I hardly seem to be the one clueless here. You don't seem to understand what is going on in the city schools, you just have an ax to grind with Bloomberg.

And how can you possibly credit Bloomberg with knowing what would or would not be important to fix the schools if you blame him for everything wrong with it? Your comments about his not making tenure an issue in the last negotiation being proof that it is not a serious reform is pure hypocrisy.

I may not be the most knowledgable person in the city on our education system, but your credentials are equally weak, if not completely in doubt. At least I can see that we have been churning out over half our students for the last 40 years who have been unable to properly read, write or do basic math. You can blame Bloomberg for that, but clearly this is a systemic problem goping on for decades and if the kids aren't being taught, there must be a problem with the teaching. You can't pass the buck for ever.

I'm all for exploring other issues that can improve the quality of education our kids receive. Charter schools are clearly a step in the right direction. Alternative schools are another. No Child Left Behind has the right idea, but there are too many overcrowded schools in nyc and it doesn't provide for a private school alternative, so its effect in nyc has been limited.

However, nothing will help like making sure every child has a qualified and motivated teacher. I've worked in a public school and have relatives who have as well. I find it insulting that good teachers have to tolerate and be brought down by the more than a handful of poor, uninterested or outright incompetant teachers who are brought into the system and given tenure by ideologically motivated administrators who care more about social justice than quality education. Or, worse, people who care more about hiring teacher who will be more devoted to the union than the school.

Yes, the problems run deep, and there is enough blame to go around. But ignoring the problems with the teachers who are the ones most hands on with the kids is stupid and shortsighted. No amount of brilliant or enlightened leadership can compensate for a teacher that just can't get the job done.

Good teachers don't need tenure. The only ones who need it are the ones who can't cut it and are afraid to get a job in the real world where performance is always a factor and you don't get the summer off.

That's good Hornack, I'm sure if you double their salaries and put them on the same footing as their well paid suburban counterparts (none of whom will give up their tenure rights and are former NYC teachers) you might find the kinds of teachers you're looking for.

More pie in the sky of a non issue.

Speaking of education, Tom, are you a product of the city schools? The name is spelled "Hornak" with no "c".

Yes, you are being very realistic. With tenure in LI schools and the number of school age children on the decline, there just aren't that many open positins for the small fraction of teaching jobs they have compared to nyc.

This is where the jobs are, every opening gets flooded with applications, and unfortunatel not always does the best candidate get the position.

The good teachers are out there, we just need to get rid of the ones that don't work out so that we can bring in ones who might.