Taking on Tenure

Revamping Hawaii's teacher tenure system is emerging as an important issue heading into contract negotiations with the Hawaii State Teachers Association this summer, as mounting pressure on public schools transforms a long-standing concern into a hot topic.

Public school principals have cited flexibility in hiring teachers as the most important tool that would empower them to run their schools, and the executive director of the Hawaii State Teachers Association, the state superintendent and the chairman of the state Board of Education all responded to that survey result by saying that they are committed to improving the current system, as long as teachers are treated fairly.

Every spring, assignments for the next school year are shuffled according to the Department of Education's Teacher Assignment and Transfer Program, the rules of which are dictated by the teachers' contract.

Teachers achieve tenure after four semesters and one day, and with that job security comes the right to "bump" probationary teachers from schools that might rather keep them.
======================================
From: http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorials/sbeditorials/20100613_Taking_on_Tenure.html

While, at the same time, thinking it's a great idea.

In other words, I put it in the same box that I put a lot of other things in--income tax, military spending, the SAT, punctuation. Even those silly tree structures from many kinds of formal linguistics.

Eliminate tenure, solve a bunch of problems, create a bunch of new problems. Are the new problems bigger than the previous problems? Dunno.

Can tenure be modified to eliminate a bunch of the current problems while preventing some of th more egregious potential problems? Sure. Does anybody want to? Few.

I thought the point of tenure at universities was that senior faculty should be able to teach and publish freely without fear of repercussions if their writings and research proved unpopular. How is that relevant to high school teachers?

primary and secondary teachers need it for the same reason that college instructors do--so they can actually do their job without fear of arbitrary firing.

Those who don't actually like teaching or aren't good at it often promote themselves out of the classroom by taking a couple of night classes and becoming a principal, vice principal, or worse, district administrator.

I met a girl through a personal ad once who worked for the LA school district, going around telling teachers what they were doing wrong. I asked her how long she taught herself before she got that job, and she said she hadn't.

at the bottom of the pay scale.

and see what happens to you.
That's one of the reasons tenure for elementary teachers got started

Last I heard (5 years ago) she's still teaching. Tenure is part of that problem. Not necessarily the concept of tenure, but the way it's done in that particular school system, at least.

is why she gets so upset when they talk about grading/testing/evaluating teachers. She says there isn't any way to compare or qualify what she does. I don't understand why teachers can establish grading systems for children but not for each other. I am just asking here, because she gets upset when it is discussed. She is tenured which I do understand and support her in.

how will teachers' effectiveness be measured? If it is done on the basis of test scores, then I'm sure everyone in the school will want the AP students' scores to be evaluated upon. If I have an average class with average students, but I teach to the best of my ability using multiple modes of learning and assessment, but have kids that don't care to perform or simply cannot perform for reasons outside of myself...will I be punished? How many of my kids have to make testable progress? The problem is that teaching is not like working in an office or assembly line, where there is a measurable output. Students are CHILDREN, and as such, often have minds of their own. Ask any parent...and that is why teachers are offended by this notion so often.

the student and the teacher. You cannot grade or test or evaluate that relationship. You cannot measure the longlasting effects of a teacher's essential work, either in the short or the long term. It is a mysterious process. Certainly, a teacher should have mastery of the subject matter. But teachers can't get tenure or even a teaching degree unless they have that.

The teachers I know were constantly studying, taking summer courses, continuing education courses and busily improving their skills. The whole grading/testing/evaluation process is just harassment.

I'd like to see people in other jobs and professions have to go through ongoing grading/testing/evaluation. That yearly evaluation is not at all like what teachers are facing now. Teacher have become the scapegoats for the social ills of our society.

It's time to place the blame elsewhere -- like with parents who don't spend enough time helping their children with homework, taking the children to museums and on nature hikes, etc. If parents did their job, there would be no complaints about teachers.

Look, I respect teaching and I know a lot of great teachers. I also knew a lot of absolute tyrants who simply liked having power over 20 people smaller and weaker than them. Tenure is a lot of things, but one of the things it is is a way to ensure bad teachers are never shown the door.

As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I'm not opposed to tenure as a concept I just don't see why teaching in particular requires it.

There is a huge difference between testing what a student has learned, what knowledge or skills the student has acquired and testing the qualities of a teacher's skills.

You can test a teacher's knowledge of the subject matter, and you can make an emotionally charged assessments of the teacher's relationship with the students. But you cannot test a teacher's teaching skills.

Many years ago, when I was writing grants, I read an important little book on how to measure performance. It explains how to set specific goals and then how to test on whether a student (or a program) can meet those goals. The method tests the student's performance. It teaches you to differentiate between a measurable goal and a subjective description of performance.

The current objective methods for measuring teachers do not measure the skill or ability of the teacher but rather measure the performance of the students. That is unfair because not all students are equal in terms of their ability or willingness to work and learn.

If teacher assessment is based on student performance, too many good teachers will be assessed as substandard, and too many ineffective teachers (let's say ineffective teachers with highly capable, highly motivated students) will be assessed as excellent.

Many, many years ago, I worked as a teaching assistant at a university. We were visited by the professor who led our program once or twice a semester. Apparently, he was really impressed by one of the teaching assistants. We other teaching assistants were told to visit her classes because she was so good. The next semester she was rewarded with two classes to teach, and, guess what, she had an awful time. The students in her classes did not respond at all well to her. She didn't change her teaching style. She was just dealing with different students. She was so disappointed. Her pride was really hurt. That's when I learned that you cannot judge a teacher's teaching.

If a teacher is really nasty, it's pretty obvious. The teacher is likely to be miserable and will leave teaching after a few years. Really good teachers love teaching, love their students. They will stay.

I did not teach after finishing my few years at the university, so I am not speaking from the perspective of a professional teacher.

There just isn't any fair way to assess teachers because you can't set measurable performance goals for them. You can set such goals for students, but not for teachers.

I read this to my husband who taught for many years and he reminds me that what teacher assessment cannot measure is how well the teacher inspires students to become productive members of society.

Getting rid of tenure would not necessarily get rid of the bullies in the classroom. Quite to the contrary. It would encourage the bullies because they will push their way to the top by being exceptionally skilled in working the system.

How do you fire a teacher? Is there any process set up for this purpose? I can think of some at the college level that have no business teaching. And what do teachers think of a trimester system. I can imagaine most wouldn't like it.

to be at the mercy of administrators even more than they are.

Tenure protects teachers' intellectual freedom. Doing away with tenure is the brainchild of authoritarian types.

One child's favorite, best teacher is another child's most hated, worst teacher. We all learn in different ways.

Tenure is earned, not given. I really like the idea of tenure.

I think that employees generally should have the right to review of the facts before they are fired. Too many employers have the practice of "creating a file" in order to justify firing an employee when there really is no reason to fire the person other than a supervisor's whim. It is unfortunate when an employee is es falsely accused of wrongdoing and cannot find a lawyer to represent him or her because the amount in controversy is too small to pay a lawyer's fee and the costs of filing a claim.

few protections the teachers have during recessions when newer teachers can be payed less, and the ones who have more earning power are removed.

Tenure does not mean a teacher cannot be fired. It does not give us carte blanche to do whatever we want with no repercussions. It does mean we cannot be removed from a position for no just cause or at a whim. Getting rid of tenure basically makes teachers silent and mute on educational policy within a school. Who would ever criticize a bad policy if it meant they would be likely be removed from their position at any administrator's desire?

The truth is simply this...If tenure goes away, so does any chance of stopping bad educational policy because no one will feel safe enough to speak out about it. Believe me, this is what the Right Want in the worst way...as Tenure falls, so to will the effectiveness of the Teachers' Unions. That is what this is really all about, IMHO. Who am I? A public school teacher of 18 years who has seen many a bad teacher released, and seen tenure work as it is supposed to. Lazy administrators just have to do their jobs in order to remove bad teachers. Getting rid of tenure is a colossal mistake.

I was a teacher for 10 years before I decided that it just wasn't worth the fight anymore. Long hours, no respect, paying for classes every summer, no time off, and having jobs vanish under my feet 3 times after absorbing the costs of relocating and setting up a new home 3 times all on a really low salary with very few benefits.

The twits who complain about tenure don't realize that tenure, where it still exists, is just what you say it is. Public education, and along with it any hope of democracy, is about to be privatized in the US. If public schools go, then the rest will collapse.

Due process before termination? I'd love to have a job with that.

and it is essential for education, regardless the level, to be successful beyond training test-takers.

Why is it essential for education for teachers to have more job security than the rest of us? Why is it we can do our jobs with the threat of being arbitrarily fired hanging over our heads but teachers can't?

I mean, I wish every job had the kind of protections teachers are working for, I just don't see why teachers in particular need it or deserve it more than anyone else.

working and moving forward. We are all about the future in a way that very few other institutions are. If you screw it up, just how much of a disaster would it cause? What would be the damage to the foundations of the US? Plenty, and teachers who are secure in their work, can concentrate on their students' needs and societal goals as well. We're one of the pillars of this nation.

Why should others be dragged down because you don't have it?

It's more that I don't see why teachers in particular need this to do their work. This is usually described as not just sound labor policy but something teachers specifically need.

particular curriculum or teach a certain way that the teacher believes is most effective. Also, it is not a good thing for principals to wield so much power all by themselves. Good schools practice shared governance and the faculty can vote no confidence in the principal without fear of retaliation. Without tenure academic freedom and shared governance are not protected.

read that as "the ability to fire experienced teachers without due process and higher less experienced (and lower paid) teachers to take their place". Am I reading that correctly?

They should not be hiring or firing teachers. They are administrative droids, and ought to stick to that job description. Hiring and firing are prerogatives of the district, and of elected officials only. When principals can fire offending teachers, the balance of power is upset.