Finally, teacher tenure explained correctly

[Wanker]

With all due respect to Ripsnort, here is a "Rip-N-Paste" from CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/07/05/teacher.tenure.ap/index.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The decades-old tradition of tenure protects teachers, often frustrates principals and has even surfaced as an issue in the presidential campaign. Now tenure itself is under review.

Tenure guarantees that public school teachers who have this protection cannot be fired without legitimate cause and due process, perhaps even a court hearing. Almost every state provides tenure in some form.

Yet with federal law requiring schools to have a top teacher for every core class, more administrators are questioning whether tenure keeps them from getting rid of even a small number of instructors who just are not good enough in the classroom.

Democrat John Kerry, the presidential candidate favored by education unions, wants to make it easier for schools to act quickly against poor teachers, provided that educators are protected from baseless firings.

To teachers, tenure is a coveted and often misunderstood right -- not a lock on a lifetime job, but assurance of fair treatment, including intervention for teachers who may be struggling to reach students.

"It's protection against the false accusations, against politically trumped up charges, against people who insist you must teach a certain way or risk getting fired," said Penny Kotterman, a special education teacher and president of the Arizona affiliate of the National Education Association. She spoke during a group interview Sunday with The Associated Press during the NEA's annual meeting.
Job security

Tenure is most associated with colleges and universities, where prospective professors earn it by compiling a rigorous record of research, teaching and service.

In the kindergarten through high school world, it is typically granted to teachers after two to five years of at least solid performance in a district, although debate continues over its value as a sign of quality.

Most principals and superintendents say tenure does not mean teachers have proved themselves to be very good, and many teachers agreed with that point in polls by the nonpartisan Public Agenda research group.
   
It's protection against the false accusations, against politically trumped up charges, against people who insist you must teach a certain way or risk getting fired.
-- Penny Kotterman, National Education Association's Arizona chapter

But Kotterman said that is off the mark. Tenure, she said, is meant mainly as an assurance of fair review, while certification and regular evaluation of teachers are indicators of quality.

In the polls, most teachers said tenure protects them from district politics and losing their jobs to newcomers who could be hired for less.

David Sanchez, a kindergarten teacher from Burlingame, California, said tenure has helped teachers who were being pushed out of jobs in retaliation for union activity.

Charles Hasse, a fourth-grader teacher and president of the Washington Education Association, said tenure helps because schools have fewer people in supervisory roles than many employers, making "the opportunity for misjudgments much greater."
Shielding the strong

School administrators, who are often former teachers, say they understand the point of tenure. But they say it can lead to frustrating delays in replacing poor teachers, leading some administrators to give up trying.

In Oklahoma, trying to remove a tenured teacher can lead to a court hearing, said Ruth Ann Carr, superintendent of Ardmore Public Schools. "You have to have people who are willing to go the distance on those type of employment situations," Carr said. "They end up feeling like they're the ones on trial."

Teachers union leaders say they support expedited reviews but they take issue with the argument that tenure protects poor teachers. They say administrators should have no problem making a clear case against those who cannot or will not improve.
States offer legitimate reasons for firing tenured teachers, from immorality to insubordination; not all directly address teaching performance. Typically, the teachers said Sunday, states have a process to speed reviews for tenured teachers accused of a major violation on campus, such as drug use.

The challenge, critics say, is getting rid of mediocre teachers, not the ones who commit egregious conduct violations.

Yet Michael Kramer, who represents teachers as general counsel for the Georgia Association of Educators, says tenure can help the educational mission by protecting strong, outspoken teachers.

"It's the brightest, the risk-taking teachers," he said, "who are most at risk for arbitrary dismissal."


This is the best explanation of what teacher tenure is, and why it is a necessary evil in the public schools.  I don't think you can remove tenure from public schools without opening up all teachers to arbitrary firings as a form of retaliation. I agree that there needs to be a quicker way to fire mediocre teachers, however. Those teachers don't belong in the classroom, and they give dedicated teachers a bad reputation through guilt by association.

Your thoughts?

[ra]

Keep the status quo.  Our schools are great.

[Sandman]

To teachers, tenure is a coveted and often misunderstood right -- not a lock on a lifetime job, but assurance of fair treatment, including intervention for teachers who may be struggling to reach students.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems silly to think that you need tenure before you can expect fair treatment.

[Wanker]

ra, it sounds like Kerry, even though supporting teachers unions, wants to help make it easier for school districts to get rid of poor/mediocre teachers. You call that status quo?

[Wanker]

Originally posted by Sandman
Maybe it's just me, but it seems silly to think that you need tenure before you can expect fair treatment.

It's not silly, Sandman. Teachers can't and don't expect fair treatment before tenure. That's because probationary teachers can be let go without any reason whatsoever. So what often happens is that you have small country schools who regularly don't renew contracts of teachers who have two years under their belt. If they offer them a third year(in Minnesota, anyway) contract, then the teacher has tenure. So, these schools let go most/all of their two years teachers and hire fresh meat straight out of college. I'm not making a value judgement on that practice, but I'm just stating a fact. If they always want their kids to be taught by beginners, that's their prerogative.

And yes, I've been there, done that. I was let go after two years after getting two outstanding yearly performance reviews in the little town I taught in.

[Shuckins]

If you want to make the nation's schools better give up your high-paying jobs and earn a teaching certificate.  Then spend at least five years in a large public school.

At the very least, it will be an educational experience.

[Wanker]

Originally posted by Shuckins
If you want to make the nation's schools better give up your high-paying jobs and earn a teaching certificate.  Then spend at least five years in a large public school.

At the very least, it will be an educational experience.

Amen, Shuckins.  

[ra]

Originally posted by banana
ra, it sounds like Kerry, even though supporting teachers unions, wants to help make it easier for school districts to get rid of poor/mediocre teachers. You call that status quo?

Kerry wants to keep the teachers union in the driver's seat.  That's the status quo.  He won't change anything significant and they know it.  The Pwna6e is obvious.  Until non-rich parents have an alternative to public schools the public schools will suck at everything but spending our money.

[Wanker]

And you really think the answer to all Public Education challenges boils down to destroying teacher unions?

Amazing.

[ra]

Originally posted by banana
And you really think the answer to all Public Education challenges boils down to destroying teacher unions?

Amazing.

I didn't say that, but if fixing public schools means "destroying" the teachers' unions, that's a no-brainer for me.   Those unions serve only the teachers, not the kids.