The Education Wars

Well, no shit, Sherlock. If a teacher is shitcanned or simply laid off, and he or she takes a "resignation" offered by the school district, he or she probably deserves what he or she got.

You NEVER, EVER, EVER resign from a school district if the district is planning to shitcan you. I wasn't given that option because the principal was a moron. I did, however, investigate the possibility of a settlement, and knew, after the district offered a pittance of $10,000, it would screw me out of unemployment compensation. Of course the union's executive director lied to me about my eligibility when I met with the union's attorney prior to asking about a settlement. She said the district would say I committed "misconduct" (WHAT fucking misconduct?) and they would "fight me." Well, I believed her shit for four months until the hearing, when the union lawyers thought I was crazy for not applying. Well, I did, and sent the state unemployment office a copy of the lawyers' opening brief, and they told me they get these kinds of cases "all the time." I was approved for UI after the district offered NO OBJECTION (they knew they wrongfully dismissed me anyway), and therefore I have received FAR more in UI than I would have in that settlement.

In fact, teachers, if offered to resign instead of terminated, should reject the idea out of hand. As the poster in the piece says, district applications (and state licensing boards) will ask if a teacher has have ever resigned in lieu of a dismissal, so there is no career benefit in taking a resignation. It's actually worse if a teacher resigns, for it signifies the teacher committed some sort of "misconduct." When a principal offers a teacher a resignation in lieu of a dismissal, it is all about the district wanting to screw a teacher out of unemployment benefits and save money. School districts should be legally barred from doing this. I believe California and Oregon, for example, actually bar districts from doing that.