How Do We Fix Tenure?
A hot topic of discussion in the news, political coliseum, and faculty rooms across the country is the concept of tenure. The term is often misunderstood by politicians, parents, and interest groups. Many think it is a way to protect incompetent educators. However, I suggest that it is fair a system of hiring and firing.
In an article entitled “Now Is The Time To Redefine Teacher Tenure” by Gary M. Chesley, tenure is stripped down and reformatted. Chesley first discusses the history of tenure up to present and how it has protected teachers from malicious intent of school boards, administrators, and politicians. He mentions several changes to clarify and improve the idea of tenure. These changes include executing three units of instruction over three years of employment, namely: writing three unit assessments, developing and executing an annual student management plan, receiving a minimum of three classroom evaluations, achieving student academic growth in specific skills, and keeping documented contributions that not only help themselves, but the school. After these requirements have been met, a tenure panel would review the information submitted by the teacher and decide whether or not to grant the teacher tenure. This would not only help teachers, but principals and often demonized unions (Chelsey, Gary 44-35).
I agree with the author. Tenure should be reformatted. However, I feel there can be even more improvements made. Previously in class, we discussed how teachers should be paid. I believe that tenure should include a possible appraisal or denial of monetary gain. If the teacher meets a percentage of the requirements listed above then pay, based on a configured pay scale, will increase. Probation of teachers and protection of teachers should also be reconfigured.
Currently, there is a probationary period of three years before a teacher is allowed tenure. This, I believe, can also be adjusted. Midway through the third year of the probationary period, the teacher should be evaluated by the appropriate administrator. Then, a meeting should take place. At this meeting, the evaluator should present the teacher with a specific improvement plan. If the teacher meets the requirements of that plan, he or she will receive tenure.
However, if the teacher does not meet the requirements, then the teacher will remain at the same pay level for the following year and not be allowed tenure in the fourth year. Midway through the fourth year, the evaluation process will be repeated. If the teacher still has not met the improvement plan recommendations then he/she will be terminated at the end of the fourth year. What is your opinion? Do you feel that tenure needs to be restructured and reconsidered? Let me hear!
It is probably my background/experience in corporate America that leaves me a bit cold and unsold on the concept of tenure. As an employee who could have been fired at any time during my years of employment for poor job performance, etc., and as an employee who worked hard to achieve and surpass goal and deadlines (and was rewarded because of it), I just do not understand the need for tenure – though I truly appreciate Dave’s ideas on how to make it serve a more noble purpose in the field of education. I especially like the part about a “specific improvement plan,” and think documentation is the key to protecting good teachers and getting rid of bad ones – no matter how long (or short) they have been working in a specific school.
ReplyDeleteAnother concern about tenure involves those teachers who are working in a school that may not be the best fit for their philosophy. Not many tenured teachers (I dare say any) would make a move for potential growth/happiness in this economy/job market. Also, I have worked in a school (with revolving administrators) where it appeared ‘good” teachers without tenure were let go after their second or third year so that another teacher could be hired at Step 1, and where “bad’ teachers made tenure because getting rid of them would have created too much turnover or grade-level shakeups for that year – and then they are there to stay. Finally, I have seen “bad” teachers who never make it to the “one day” that comes after the three years. Why string these educators along? Give them an improvement plan after the first year, and if they do not improve, cut everyone’s losses at two. Timing is everything!
I agree both with Dave and Lisa.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dave in that there should be some kind of tenure and that a "specific improvement plan" is the way to do it without too much of a problem. I think tenure s necessary to protect teachers from losing their job for no reason. If tenure does not exist, there is nothing to stop the new superintendent from firing a perfectly good teacher just so that his nephew can now have a job.
I agree with Lisa in that tenure may prevent a teacher from switching to a new school which may be more suited to their teaching style and ideas. I would think that once you get tenure, it would be very tempting to just stay where you are, especially now when it is so difficult to get a teaching job.
I agree with Lisa and Dave. I believe that the system of tenure as we know it now needs to be changed. In no other job is there a system like tenure, and although there are some nice aspects, there are some things that need to be changed.
ReplyDeleteI believe that some teachers work hard to gain tenure, and then become lazy. I also believe that there are amazing teachers who receive tenure and continue to work hard and expect the most from their students.
I believe that Dave's idea about a "Specific Improvement Plan" may help to rid the system of "bad" teachers, and allow the "good" teachers to show all they have to offer a school district.
I realize that removing a "bad" teacher from a school district can be troublesome, however if proper records are kept tenure should not stand in the way of removing someone who is incompetent. Tenure will always be a hot topic in education, perhaps one day everyone will find the middle ground necessary to make big changes as Dave suggests.
In the corporate environments I have worked in, it is not so easy to fire an employee. Many companies are afraid of being sued from the employee over claims of age discrimination or something similar. There is a yearly and sometimes quarterly review process in which the employer is obligated to meet with employees about their job performance. This information is well documented and signed off on by both employer and employee. If the employee consistently shows poor performance they are put on probation. They are given a "Specific Improvement Plan" that is to be followed. If improvement is shown within the probation period, the employee has escaped the gauntlet. If no improvement is shown, then the phasing out process begins and then it's curtains! Tenure should serve to provide teachers with this same due process. If the administration completes such due process and discovers that the teacher has made no improvement, they should have the right to fire them. Ideally, since everything has been documented and agreed upon, it should help protect the administration if they are sued over "wrongful termination." (notice, I said "Ideally")
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of the pros and cons shared so far. I too believe there needs to be some reform for tenure and I like Dave's suggestion about linking it closely to modified performance evaluation standards. My main support of tenure stems from the protection it offers in eliminating more experienced and thus more expensive teachers for less experienced / less expensive teachers as a cost savings model for a district. This same bad practice can be seen in the corporate world as well where an outsourcing arrangement was supposed to save money due to the labor arbitrage but the decreased talent and experience often ended in a corporate spending more money to bring the outsourced resources up to speed. Moreover, many times companies have opted to bring the work back to the US because the same quality could not be replicated.
ReplyDeleteI think from a public perception standpoint if changes could be made to tenure to remove some of the negative stigma it now carries, that would go a long way to quell some of the strong emotions that surround this topic. We could then get back to focusing on the real issues and challenges teachers face in the classroom every day rather than whether or not tenure protects "lazy" teachers. From my humble perspective, the people who become teachers are not entering the field for monetary gain. They are draw by a real love of their subject and the desire to make a difference in the world.
I agree with what everyone has commented on previously. The concept of tenure in the original use- to protect good and effective teachers, has unfortunately not remained true in modern school systems. I think the concept of a re-evauation is an effective means of keeping a tenured teacher working to their full ability. However, the only change that I would make to Dave's proposed plan is not to terminate a teacher entirely if they are not capable of meeting their plan but perhaps revoking their tenure for a certain amount of time after they have been able to complete the predetermined action plan for the year.
ReplyDeleteTenure in itself seems to be an old issue with new controversy; only at the height of social debate based on our current localized government. Teachers are always under a certain amount of scrutiny given our qualitative function of educating our community’s youth. Accountants can calculate funds within a company, investors can show their day to day successes in the form of monetary success, even actors can boast about their occupational achievement through television or stage credits, but we as teachers, can never truly prove that each and every one of our students have “learned”. Because our occupation has so many variables including teacher styles, lack of parent’s physical presence in the classroom, special education students, and most importantly district specific curriculum, there will inevitably be some underlying social mistrust.
ReplyDeleteTenure, in theory, was created to combat that social mistrust; a way of leveling the playing field. Although it was put into place to create a sense of job security, some teachers abuse the privileges that this system allows, and lose sight of the innovative and dedicated teaching skills that they honed in the years leading up to their tenure. Though I believe that there is little respect for those who hide ineffective teaching behind tenure policy, I think that we are taking the humanistic element out of this controversy. Teachers, believe it or not, are humans, just like everyone else. Regardless of the environment, with any privilege given in an employment setting, some employees are going to take advantage of it. It is simply psychological predictability.
Perhaps the way to end this social unrest is a system where teachers are nationally evaluated and accredited more frequently. Even if a tenure-like level of prestige remains in place following three years and one day of service, perhaps there should be other gradual evaluations and levels before all of the current rights, “perks”, and benefits are given. When teachers, much like any one, are not given constant goals and achievements to strive for, it is absolutely inevitable that they would fall into a “slump” of sorts. At this current moment, we have thousands of teachers who are ages 25-50 and virtually have nothing to look forward to in their teaching career until retirement, pending their interest in another degree or an administrative position.
I do agree with Dave that tenure needs to be looked at thoroughly, however I think the process should differ slightly. I do not think that mid-year evaluations would be all that beneficial, in fact they may cause some problems within the classroom. I think that we should stick to the main layout for tenure, but I think that the teacher should have to apply for tenure after completing their second full year in a district. Once they have applied, they will be evaluated all throughout their third year. This gives teachers the decision to stay within the district if they feel it is a good fit. After their evaluation year, the board discusses weather or not certain criteria was met, and they decide weather or not to grant tenure. If a teacher applies for tenure and does not get it, they are encouraged to apply again that year so they may be observed the next. If a school system sees that a certain teacher has applied for tenure for a few years, and they have not met the criteria as of yet, then the school can let them go if they wish. I think this allows both the school district and the teachers a bit more of opportunity.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete