What it does:

Attempts to make it easier to fire bad school teachers by extending the probationary period of employment from two to five years.

Why we oppose it:

Bad teachers ought to get the boot, but not through the measure’s clumsy language, which makes the profession considerably less

attractive.

Proposition 74’s central point — that California has too many underperforming teachers and needs a more efficient mechanism to get rid of them — is a valid one.

But what remains of the measure is merely a single thrust of what was once a sprawling plan to address multiple aspects of the system, and as such, it could have as many negative effects as positive ones. The idea is that, by reducing job security, slackers would be discovered before they earn tenure and would be tossed out early.

Whether this would work as planned is doubtful, especially since California seems to have a hard enough time attracting teachers as it is. Adding further disincentives (by delaying higher pay and security) for qualified applicants could make it even harder. And why five years, when the vast majority of states have a probationary period that lasts between two and three years?

The measure’s attempt to ease the firing process of tenured teachers illustrates its fundamental sloppiness. To be thrown out, teachers would need two “unsatisfactory” evaluations one year apart, potentially making it more difficult to fire older and out-of-touch teachers who probably most deserve ousting.

We can do better than this small, clumsy attempt at educational reform. Passed alone, Proposition 74 is unlikely to have a significantly positive effect. Because the measure could not be adjusted by the Legislature once it passes, it could give students and administrators headaches for years to come.