Right now at the school where my wife teaches, one of the teachers is enduring the second year of attacks by a parent. All of the complaints the parent has made have been investigated and dismissed, so the parent has now turned to personal attacks against the teacher, assistant principal, principal, superintendent and anyone else in the firing line.
Now this particular parent happens to be a nut case. But if she were, say, to run for the school board and win, there’s no doubt she would view it as her personal mission to get the teacher fired, her teaching certificate revoked and her career ruined.
The teacher has tenure. There’s no “cause” for her to be fired. She’s not going anywhere until she’s ready to go.
I agree with your post. This last sentence stuck out, however. It seems to me that it doesn’t matter that a teacher “wants to make a difference” if they still suck at their job.
Teaching is more than just readiong the textbook out loud to the class and grading tests. You have to have some amount of interpersonnal skills to get the kids motivated to learn the stuff, and you have to have to be able to handle the disciplinary issues that crop up without seeming like a complete weenie.
The teacher can be smart as all heck, and a sincere desire for the kids to succeed in life, but without those social skills, he/she may be a poor teacher. Then what? The school puts that person into a position that minimises their bad, and emphasises their good skiils, if they can afford to juggle the staff around like that… I guess.
Might be true in some departments in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, but that definitely isn’t true across the university. There is no tenure track at Harvard - that’s true.
That doesn’t deny the fact that their tenure granting process is incredibly stupid, though.
This is not at all true, by the way: I teach AP Language and Composition. I have a broad outline of what I have to do–teach students to argue effectively and perform rhetorical analysis–but I choose my readings, my approach, my assessments. And about the only “pre-generated” thing I use are released AP exams. The rest I make myself, often times adapting what has gone before. This is often the case–it’s why the job requires a degree and special training.
Texas doesn’t have tenure for public school teachers, but we are under contract and can’t be released without cause. And that protection can be useful–in order to prepare kids for my AP exam, they have to develop a sense of current issues in order to be able to analyze arguements. So we do units on race and gender and class and we read Huck Finn and we talk about politics. It’s not just “trace animal imagery in the Pearl”.
Manda Jo is correct. Teachers must choose the method and materials which are most appropriate for the student or students. The teachers must design most of the materials, handous and tests other than what is available in the textbooks. My understanding is that most teachers still have to use memo machines instead of xerox or other copiers.
Tenure does not protect teachers who abuse children, who are negligent in their duties or who are unprofessional in their conduct. Unless the offense is obvious, it sometimes takes time to document.
And example of school politics:
In some schools the administrator’s main concern appears to be that the school look good on paper no matter what. Armed robberies of teachers inside the building are not reported to the police (except for the in-school policeman) and do not make the local news. Students commit actual crimes (rigging explosives, for example) and receive three day suspensions. Grades are changed without consultation with the teacher – a violation of Board of Education rules. Teachers are not informed when weapons, including guns, are removed from their classrooms. Board of Education policies on required attendance are violated.
What happens to the teachers who find out about these things and blow the whistle? Unless they have tenure, they will be dismissed.
There is perhaps only one class of public jobs that are analogous to professors in that their stock in trade is words: words, ideas, notions, opinions, philosophies. That is Congress.
The founding fathers understood this, and understood that history had shown that speaking those words, ideas, notions, opinions, and philosophies could be dangerous to the individual. So they protected them in the Constitution:
Except that this crops up in many, many workplaces, not just schools. Do you think malls, as an example, wouldn’t discourage employees from calling attention to crimes that take place there? Tenure may be handy in dealing with those issues, but that alone wouldn’t justify tenure. There are laws (mostly at the state level, so they vary in what they cover) that protect people from retaliatory job consequences due to making reports or complaints of various types. I don’t see a reason why teachers would need more protection in that regard than other types of workers.
There is a rationale for tenure based on freedom of thought and expression that we want educators to have, but it is too easy to confuse that with just wanting educators to have job security in general.
Clearly in the NCLB world that is education today, tenure doesn’t make as much sense (unfortunately). When teachers had more freedom to teach US History or World Literature and focus on topics and issues that were unpalatable to some parents, clergy, or board members, tenure provided that protection.
Today it’s perhaps one of the few perks of a job that is relatively low-paying and stressful. There isn’t much of a career ladder for teachers. If you love teaching, your last year teaching at 65 will greatly resemble your first at 21. If you want to progress, you have to become an administrator, paradoxically losing time in the classroom, and more likely, staying out of classrooms altogether (to teach, anyway). There are opportunities to serve as a grade level head or department chair but that’s about it. Tenure is one of the brass rings in a relatively flat career path.
Maybe I’m belaboring this point, but that does NOT justify it. There are lots of other low paying, high stress, relatively dead-end jobs that do not provide tenure. As an example, I have two friends with MSWs who provide counseling to chemically dependent pregnant women. Sure, maybe someday one of them will manage the department, but the career ladder is pretty flat. They do tremendous good in the world, and the stress of, among other things, seeing what these women’s other children already go through, is incredible. But, no tenure. If teachers have come to think of tenure as “perk,” it might be time to reconsider it.
Well, tenure wasn’t originally just a perk - it had a real purpose for the reasons I listed above. I’m suggesting why tenure still exists even though a lot of those reasons have fallen by the wayside. Maybe one day soon, NCLB will be exposed as the sham that it is and districts will allow teachers to teach a subject rather than teach to a test, and tenure becomes needed and necessary again.
Look at our judicial system. Some judges are appointed to the bench for life; others are voted in and can be removed every election cycle.
Fine, let’s look at it as a perk. I’ll use my own situation as a sample case.
You’ve got only so many of us young mathematics Ph.D.s. We’re the only ones who are qualified to teach your college kids’ advanced mathematics courses, especially as the older guard dies off. We’re looking at $60K for the absolute top jobs when we’re almost 30. We could make six, even seven figures in no time flat from engineering firms or hedge funds who worship the Ph.D.s.
So what keeps us? To a large extent it’s the hours, the opportunity for research in what we’re interested in and the tenure. Nobody else in their mid-to-late twenties has any faith in a lifetime job. All employment is at-will, and people get tossed into the gutter to make the board of directors’ stock options go up half a point.
So fine: reconsider tenure. Then add a zero to the end of my paycheck or find someone else to put up with your grade-grubbing brats.
Who wants poor educators to have job security? They make the situation worse for everyone including other educators. I support rigorous pre-screening and testing of teachers before they enter the profession and before they are granted tenure. And I support thoughtful and meaningful evaluations every year.
I do not support such practices as comparing the students’ test scores of a teacher who teaches all fundamental students with the test scores of a teacher who teaches all honors and AP students. That kind of nonsense does go on.
Tenure doesn’t provide the kind of job security people seem to think it does. A teacher can still be let go if they do something illegal or unethical. And an administration can still get rid of a teacher they don’t want around any more, they just have to build a case. The same as with, say, a policeman.
There was a case a few years back where a history prof at a school in the southwest, when he first heard about the 9/11 attacks, said something to his class along the lines of “anyone who blows up the Pentagon is okay by me.” Stupid? Classless? You bet. But it wasn’t on the test, it was just a comment in class. No one had ever accused the guy of being a bad teacher, in fact he was rather popular up to that point.
I talked to an engineering professor from that school about a year ago, and he told me how the administration looked over the guy’s publication record, his record for turning in paperwork late, and anything else they could find. He was on the street in a year. Again, a stupid outburst in front of a class, but this was a guy fired for expressing a politically unpopular thought.
