Of course the judge pulled that "ineffective" number out of his ass--indeed the whole Vergara decision is nothing but a load of political bullshit.
David Berliner is the LAST person who would go around and bash the teaching profession.
The reality of the school workplace:
Administrators have always been the biggest problem in education because they work basically unsupervised and aren’t held accountable for their actions. There is no real chain of command in education where an abused teacher can go over a supervisor’s head and grieve it to a principal’s “supervisor” clear across town. That’s ostensibly one of the reasons why “due process” protections are there for teachers and why they are supposed to have effective unions, which are all too rare.
Administrators in most cases today are either not teachers at all or found out they couldn’t cut it in the classroom or hate kids or want an easier, more highly paid position. Because they have political connections, they “fail up” in the organization. I had two like that, and both of them are still employed by the district when they clearly should have been fired. This despite the fact the narcissistic nitwit who “dismissed” me over nothing keeps getting moved from job to job to job. This despite the fact the other principal admitted to having sex with subordinates–a firing offense in my current state and subject to license revocation–and was demoted to teacher.
Administrators are backed to the hilt by school districts. The reason is because to fire a principal means somebody else further up the ladder, like a superintendent, looks bad to the public. Can’t have that.
Let’s face it: a “bad teacher,” unless it is a person who clearly committed a criminal or brazenly unethical act, is strictly a matter of opinion.
So should be going around destroying careers on the basis of one person’s opinion, the opinion of an unsupervised, unaccountable principal? Once you are canned by these cretins or otherwise forced out, it is next to impossible to EVER go back into teaching again.
I have already said literally thousands of teachers around the country are dumped by administrators each year. The decision by a right-wing judge is based on a pack of lies that it is “impossible” to “fire” a teacher because so “few” of them are “fired.”
It’s only the handful of teachers who avail themselves to administrative hearings and lose. The vast majority do NOT go through them but take severance agreements called “settlements” for a promise not to sue a school district. Most teachers take the severance agreements mistakenly thinking they can resume their careers. There’s no evidence to support it. It’s basically an admission of guilt in the eyes of other school districts if you take a resignation in lieu of a dismissal.
To reiterate, as I know this process, albeit in a different state, intimately, and know how the game is rigged against teachers from the time they are hired:
One thing the liars who hate “tenure” fail to note is the fact school districts play fast and loose with the terminology. The fact is the only teachers who are considered “fired” or “dismissed” in the educrat world are those post-probationary employees who actually bother to go through the hearings and “lose.” However, school districts get rid of vastly more people than those who go through the hearings.
Here are the instances where teachers are fired for all intents and purposes. They number in the thousands, if not tens of thousands, a year. The vast majority have not committed any criminal act or act that would have their licenses sanctioned:
Teachers are forced to resign.
Teachers are forced into early retirement.
Teachers who are probationary and are not “renewed.”
Teachers who resign in “lieu of a dismissal”; i.e., those who take the severance agreements after the district has decided to terminate their employment.
Teachers who go through the sham tribunals and are “dismissed” because they “lost.”
The only instance where teachers are NOT fired but are let go is in the event of a layoff due to a position being eliminated or because of budgetary reasons. Those are called “reductions in force.”
I KNOW Berliner never said or meant what the judge claimed. The judge literally pulled his ruling from his backside and was probably on the take.