You can't evalate a teacher in the first two years. Experts say it takes 4 years to evaluate a teacher's performance adequately, which means that incompetent teachers would not get tenured in the first place.
Its interesting that you defend the status quo against Arnold's school funding reforms by complaining that schools here don't get enough money. Illogical, but interesting.
What experts are those? Can you cite a reputable source - a professional study done by an impartial university researcher, something from the US department of education, even some half-witted right wing think tank?
Most folks who aren't cut out to teach remove themselves within the first two years. And the burnouts have far more than five years experience, and many of them are burnt out not from the kids, but from ideologues who prefer to see the budget only in terms of short term gain rather than long term results (it takes years, even decades, for the impact of quailty eduction - or lack thereof - to be felt in the economy.), and short-shrift the schools because the results won't be seen until far after the next election.
Teachers are underpaid given the requirements they have to fufill, given lip service by the same politicans who ream them over and over again; then people wonder why we have a critical shortage of teachers in key areas. And the teachers end up getting the blame for low test scores even though a lack of people in the profession makes it difficult to have enough teachers to meet the students needs.
And tenure is not a lifetime appointment like a seat on the supreme court. It only guarenetees that a teacher who has achieved it gets a hearing to show that the firing was 'for cause', rather than for endorsing a candidate for the school board on their own time that the principal dislikes, or blowing the whistle on waste in the administration.
