Back in October, I posted a little bit about tenure. I was (and remain) pretty adamant that "tenure" does not grant with it a status of "unable to be fired." That being said, I do want to let you all know that I absolutely realize that it does have a de facto sense of that. I tried make that clear in the original post and realize that Iwas not as clear as I could have been.
So, here's the summary:
"Tenure" means that you have a right to due process and an appeal if you're fired. It does not entitle you to your job in perpetuity; merely to a right to know why you're being fired, and to be heard if you're forced out. And of course, you can't be fired arbitrarily. With tenure, you can only be fired for cause.
That being said, historically administrators do such a poor job of documenting cause, that by the time it is clear that a teacher really really really needs to go, administrators are way, way, waaaaay behind in having a justification for firing that tenured teacher. Generally speaking, unless the offense is egregious, the paper trail to show cause for the firing can't be created overnight. (You can't show a history of bad behavior if your history only started recently and therefore can be explained away...) So, if you have a lousy teacher who's getting worse, but no single "big thing" to point to, you can't fire this teacher unless you've documented the issues, however small, all along. Most of the time this doesn't happen. (Do I have data? No, but I have anecdotal evidence and heck, I watch the news and read education blogs!)
Moreover, once you've got this teacher you want to fire, very often the union steps in to represent the teacher. Now, whether you like it or not, those union reps and attorneys are doing their jobs to represent their client teacher. (Think, if you will, of the defense attorneys who represent the worst of the worst. Those criminals still have rights, and the attorneys don't defend the criminals, per se, but rather protect the rights of those criminals.) Same is true for the attorneys and union reps who step in to "save" the teacher's job.
I was speaking with an education law attorney recently who said she doesn't believe in tenure precisely because of this part of the process. Teachers who need to leave teaching (by any standards but their own) will fight, and put the administrators through such efforts and misery that the administrators almost universally say "never again." Quite frankly, it takes such time and effort (and therefore, money), and the process is made so miserable, that it is easier for school districts to let bad teachers languish until retirement, than to be repeatedly dragged through the mud.
I am not convinced I don't believe in tenure, though, because I have seen arbitrary decisions by petty administrators, and tenure generally works to balance that. It allows teachers to stand up for themselves without fear of retribution. (Before you go saying that there are other protections in place, I will say that there are infinite ways for an administrator to make a teacher miserable, any of which standing alone is perfectly "justifiable given the circumstances and needs of the school." To document and show a pattern of retaliation is difficult, if not impossible, and yet we all know it happens.)
What we do need is for administrators to start the evaluation process and paper trail immediately -- and we need an appeals process that isn't so miserable that it makes administrators want to forget it and keep terrible teachers around. This is where more robust teacher evaluations are very important, and I think we're starting to see a swing towards such evaluations nationally. Of course, there are still many issues to work out with teacher evaluations in general, but that's another post. My point is that richer, more detailed evaluations would help avoid this lack-of-documentation issue.
I'm going to try to sit in on some hearings in the future, to see how the tenure/firing process works in person. I don't know if I'll be allowed to do this, but if I can find a public hearing, I'll write more about what I see.
Jen, I've never been a proponent of tenure, or step-pay for that matter. The fact is, I don't believe that any other occupation, save for the Supreme Court, is an appointment for life. In my career as an engineer, I was either an exceptional employee in my bosses eyes, or I wasn't worth keeping on the salary roles. I don't believe that education should be any different.
ReplyDeleteThe grasp of the unions on the salary structure has contributed to the "need" for tenure by making it nearly impossible for teachers with many years of service to attain new employment due to their status at the highest step. No public school, in it's right mind, would higher a teacher with 20 years experience when they can higher a teacher of 5 or less years of service for 1/2 the cost.
The end result is a legion of teachers who are "playing out the string" and providing little value in the last years of their career. Some of their administrators would, when pressed, admit that they should have been relieved of their duties long ago. A sad cycle, indeed.
Sorry for the long-winded response. Tenure and Union influence is an area of great passion for me.
Thanks, Dave. I couldn't agree with you more about step pay. But as to tenure, we disagree a little bit.
ReplyDeleteI do that there is no such thing (or there ought not be, anyway) as a permanent position. However, the unique aspect of teaching and the problem of measuring a good teacher is so nebulous, that in some cases, tenure is a good protection for the teacher. Now -- before you go and say if the teacher is good, it's obvious and there are no issues, let me offer you a not-at-all unusual hypothetical.
Teacher A is a great teacher. Perhaps a bit bold, or perhaps the department head or an administrator for whatever reason doesn't like Teacher A. (I'm not suggesting reasons here -- it can be anything.) Teacher A suddenly finds him- or her-self receiving less-than-stellar reviews, a few persnickety emails (always email, to create documentation ...) or even the following year, a lousy teaching/duty schedule. In Year 2, the administration can point to Teacher A as being a poor teacher because the low-achieving kids he or she was given are, in fact, still low-achievers. Teacher A was railroaded over a personality conflict, and tenure might have protected Teacher A ...
No, I am not and have never been Teacher A, don't go getting any ideas! But I have taught in four schools, and in each one I have seen a new Teacher A treated this way. I refuse to believe that these are isolated incidents. I know tenure as it stands today is a mess, but a modified version is necessary.
As to the teachers playing out the string, I was just griping about this with a parent the other day. Her son has one of those teachers whose prime has long since passed. The only ones getting hurt are the kids. But of course since this particular teacher has been around since shortly after the dawn of time and makes no waves, she has all AP/Honors classes and those kids "teach themselves," as we all "know". No one complains to anyone who can or will do anything about it; the result is this teacher will likely keel over and die at her desk one day.
I don't disagree with you, that the unions are not our best friends or that tenure has its problems, Dave. I just think we need *some* mechanism to protect against petty, ignorant, and power-tripping administrators, and tenure is (for the moment) the only real tool we have.