It’s the union’s job to represent its members. It’s as simple as that. That’s what they’re there for. The notion that anyone facing removal from a job does not merit a vigorous defense is un-American.

Those who are so quick to condemn Mr. Goodman for doing his job ought to know that this city has had many, many opportunities to hire more selectively and has balked repeatedly, choosing to lower standards, establish 800 numbers, and conduct multiple intergalactic searches to fill those ancient wooden chairs.

I don’t believe in hiring bad teachers, or granting them tenure. But neither I nor the UFT has any say in those matters.

As for the comment being telling, I take strong exception to that, and those who’d stereotype teachers are bigots, plain and simple. There’s a school of thought that working conditions are bad in this country, and there’s a certain amount of truth to that.

To make the conclusion that we will somehow improve things by worsening conditions for teachers is nothing short of idiotic. All workers, not just teachers, deserve protection and due process.

We should be working to improve the lot of working Americans, not worsen that of teachers.

I couldn’t disagree more with your comment. The UFT is not responsible for the hiring of personnel; the union is responsible for making sure that the contract is protected and enforced for the good of the entire membership. The UFT does not negotiate in a vacuum; it is an agreement between the union and the City.

What we’re really seeing in Mr. Goodman’s editorial is that management does not follow its own rules. Getting rid of an incompetent teacher should happen within the three years of probation. If the principal fails to do his/her job properly, then he or she must have a solid paper trail that leads to a 3020 hearing. Again, the administration has to do its part. If a lawyer were to go to court unprepared, his case would be thrown out. If a teacher wants a problem student suspended and has no evidence of interventions performed, the hearing officer will send that child right back to the classroom. It’s all about preparation.

Blame the DOE with its policy of unseasoned administrators who can’t recognize good or bad instruction when they see it. The recipe of putting a novice through the leadership academy, add water, and voila! instant principal is insane.

While its important for us all to have good teachers as colleagues, the rules that exist are there for a reason. Please read about the history of the union and why we have the rights we do. Bring back the career ladder for adminstrators and mandate a minimum number of years teaching before granting supervisory positions. You can’t supervise what you don’t know.

The union doesn’t hire teachers, but the union contract makes it too difficult to terminate incompetent teachers. There is a huge number of people from all political backgrounds around the country that believe this to be a major problem. While trying to protect good teachers, the contract unfortunately gives excessive job protection to bad teachers. This hurts kids and, in the process, reflects extremely poorly on the profession of teaching.

Your anecdote with the “How can you represent this guy?” line is telling. How can teachers get the respect they deserve if people can ask this question and your only response is to blame others for a bad hiring decision? More importantly, how can we sacrifice the education of the kids that have this sort of teacher while we take turns passing the buck?

In any case, I hope you would recognize that there are many of us that truly believe that teacher tenure and the process of terminating incompetent teachers needs to be reformed for the good of the entire system — including for the good of the teaching profession.

Ken