The Paper Should Never Have Published This Story

of a fired teacher, provided there were no criminal charges filed against her. Instead, she was considered "grossly negligent of duty" and accused of"unfitness." Of course state statutes are intentionally vague about what these terms mean, so they mean whatever a school district administrator says they mean.

link

My comment:

I also think the teacher can appeal the termination to the state panel (not TSPC), so that may be why any details have not been disclosed. But given how easily teachers are removed, even in a state like Oregon where presumably teachers have "rights" (though they really don't), the story still shouldn't haven't been published.

The MT and other media need to be aware of just what teachers go through, and that contrary to privatization propaganda, they are easily removed. Administrators unfortunately are not. Even one principal I had in Nevada wasn't fired outright although he should have been for committing sexual misconduct with a subordinate. Instead, he was demoted to teacher and moved to another school. The principal who wrongfully terminated me and neglected to do her job wasn't fired but should have been but instead was reassigned to another school as "punishment" for her misdeeds. She is still making the same obscene pay and taking fancy vacations. She was and is totally unfit to be a principal. But the district went out of its way to destroy me to cover both her hind end and that of the chief of human resources.

The MT also needs to be aware that state administrative statutes aren't worth the paper they are written on. They are purposely written vague so that school district administrators can do whatever they want to teachers. These statutes give teachers a false sense of protection but in fact the statutes are written to protect school districts and their administrators.