Sometimes, perhaps not infrequently, the problem is that teachers who were competent when they started out have burned out.

Why blame Management for inflicting upon them a decision made by Politicians? Politicians who, more often than not, were heavily supported while campaigning with funds from those same Teacher’s Unions…

Yes, they might be at the level termed “management” in an actual business, but they don’t have any actual say over Union work rules. Thus, “Administrators” is the more apt term.

In theory, tenure could be worthwhile for K-12 teachers speaking up against corruption and waste in the school administration. But has that ever happened? And perhaps such whistleblowers could be protected by the same sort of (more narrowly tailored) whistleblower laws as other public employees.

I think you’ve missed one of the more dramatic effects of unionization.

The use of seniority (rather than merit) to define pay and workload produces a playing field where the goal is not to excel, but to simply survive. The winners are those who do the least without being fired. As a result, while they all may be convinced that they are part of the “good” 99%, in their subconscious minds they know they have fallen into the same trap as all the others. If anyone can be fired for sub-par performance, so can they all. This is what drives the protectionism of the worst few.

I’ve witnessed this first hand, where many an idealist are suddenly confronted with the reality of a union environment. Once they see how longevity is rewarded and hard work scorned, they quickly fall into place. It is truly disheartening to see.

So why would unions go to the mat to protect the dreadful members that only drag them all down. At least appear willing to throw a few union members under the bus. At least appear to police your own, by offering up for firing the worst of the worst.
But unions will never, ever, admit that any single member has failed to live up to standards, which means that the union has no standards.

Why don’t we blame management for giving tenure to unqualified teachers?

I could be wrong, but given that teachers’ unions are pervasive and strong, my guess is that much of the public school “tenure” process is based on seniority, rather than competence.

Why do we blame the rules for difficulties getting rid of bad tenured teachers? Why don’t we blame management for giving tenure to unqualified teachers?

I suspect that the original reason was to prevent the school board/administration from firing competent teachers and replacing them with their friends/relatives/political supporters…patronage, in a word. The same reason we have a Civil Service system in government.
Should the same rationale apply now that teachers belong to a politically strong union?

Probably not.

Well said.

From a high school teacher who doesn’t need tenure to keep his job.

Why would one even give tenure to K-12 teachers?

Teachers’ unions. They’re powerful and unavoidable, at least on the public school side.