Four Thoughts on Public Education - Tenure

"Good company and good discourse are the very sinews of virtue."
Izaak Walton

Perhaps it is yet another sign of my age, but I firmly believe the debates raging currently across the nation regarding education, teacher's unions, and collective bargaining have long ago left the arena of good discourse.

As I've shared in an early post, I continue to point an accusing finger at people like Governor's Walker and Daniels for allowing a legitimate financial crisis to be pushed into a "We versus They" division in our country, the likes of which we have not seen in some time.

The whole truth however is that those of us on the other side of this issue are no less guilty of allowing the divisive controversy to continue. While some may have entered the debate from a position of reason and rationality, it didn't take long for us to slip altogether too comfortably into the flinging of verbal fists.

More importantly, the rigidity with which some in public education have approached this debate has only fueled the fires of dissatisfaction and anger.

As is so often the case, I believe the truth in this controversy lies somewhere in between the extreme rhetoric coming from both sides.

The political leaders (hopefully) know full well that it does not take the elimination of collective bargaining rights from teachers in order to achieve concessions that will help alleviate the financial crunch their states are experiencing.

But similarly, it is well past time that teachers and their union representatives agree to deal openly and honestly with issues of change. Especially when many of those issues hold the potential to accomplish the primary goals of both sides: fiscal relief for the state budget, and improved educational opportunities for students.

To that end, I offer my thoughts on four issues currently surrounding the public education issue in America. I profess no authority on these ideas, and I claim to speak for no one but myself. It is my hope that by continuing the discourse in a reasonable and rational way, we might encourage our leaders and our neighbors to do the same.

TENURE

One of the first claims from those who attempt to facilitate change in various pockets of public education is that the tenure system makes removal of bad educators virtually impossible. As such, it has become a hot-button issue in educational reform, and certainly a target in states where collective bargaining rights are being challenged.

My 15 year experience in education simply does not reflect the existence of a tenure system that makes removal of teachers impossible. I have seen teachers removed from their positions, albeit for gross violations of conduct. Having participated in contract negotiations with a school board and being somewhat familiar with the contract language used there, I can tell you that "tenure" is really the wrong word for the protection that this language brings. A more apt description would be "due process rights" in matters of termination.

In colleges, tenure is granted to some faculty members after a long and often difficult process. Professors who are hoping to gain tenure typically must justify their worth and credentials by proving their accomplishments and submitting themselves to the rigor of examination by their colleagues. Once granted though, tenure is for life, and that educator simply cannot be removed from their position except for the most grievous offense.

Tenure in public schools does not work that way.

A new teacher to a school system, whether a first year teacher or simply a teacher new to the school system, is typically hired in a probationary status. This probationary period lasts typically 2-3 years, during which the school system can choose at the end of any school year to decline the services of the teacher for the following year. No due process or reason must be granted during this probationary period.

Should the school choose to retain the teacher after this probationary period however, the teacher is granted "permanent" status. At this point, it is still possible to remove the teacher from the school system, but now the school must show just cause. This "cause" may be as simple as a reduction in force that makes the teacher's position no longer required. But when it concerns a teacher whose performance has been deemed unacceptable, the process requires justification.

The problem in many schools that find it difficult to remove unacceptable teachers is that they do not have a system in place that regularly and thoroughly evaluates their teachers. As such, it is practically impossible to establish a history of poor performance, making it difficult to show just cause.

Think of a new principal or superintendent who comes to a school system hoping to bring positive change. As they begin observing and evaluating staff, they find several teachers who are not doing their job as it should be done. But when they attempt to remove the teacher, they find no evidence in their file of poor performance. Lacking justification for removing the teacher, they are forced to continue employment until sufficient evidence exists to justify termination.

I understand that not all employees in all fields have such protection. I don't profess to know the laws regarding job rights. But it seems reasonable to me that an employer should have to have justification to terminate your position, particularly if they are asserting that you are ineffective or underperforming in some way. Note that teachers, permanent or probationary, are still subject to staff reductions, regardless of the protection afforded by due process.

The problem with the tenure issue on the teachers side of things is that it has become a holy grail in these types of debates. Many teachers, knowing that public school "tenure" is NOT college "tenure," bristle and take offense at people who suggest they do not deserve or need due process protection.

It's time for teachers and their representatives to offer something to the discussion about the tenure process, rather than digging in their heels and fighting to the bitter end.

Modification to the tenure process should begin with developing an evaluation system that is thorough and as non-subjective as possible. Such a process should be a collaborative effort between teachers and administrators, and should take place several times throughout the year. The ingredients of such a system I will leave to another day, but I will say even now that teachers must begin to allow some measure of student performance to become a part of their assessment.

Additionally, this process of achieving permanent status must become more rigorous. The general public is right to scoff at a system that awards such a status to an individual simply because they managed to keep their nose clean for a few years of employement. Lengthening the process and expecting teachers to have shown accomplishment during their probationary period are both positive changes that would legitimize awarding permanent status.

Public school teachers do not typically conduct research or write papers. But they are involved in out of the class activities at school - some professional and some student centered. Expecting new teachers to show their value to the school community, and to students in particular, is not unreasonable. At the same time, this cannot simply become the mechanism by which schools find coaches and sponsors for school activities. The focus should be on genuine interest and involvement in activities that better the teacher, the school, and the students.

Finally, it is time for teachers to send a message to their union representatives, many who have been out of the classroom long enough to care more about their jobs than the schools and students their teachers work in.

Stop protecting horrible teachers. Period.

I'm not talking about teachers who are struggling to find their way to being better educators. I'm talking about teachers who punch the clock, arrive as late as possible, leave as early as possible, and rarely work an hour out of the classroom. I'm talking about teachers who routinely walk back and forth over the line between appropriate and inappropriate behavior. And I'm talking about teachers who break the law.

Our unions, where they exist, need to begin exercising some common sense when approached by union member teachers who are under the gun. If a teacher has conducted him or herself in a way that brings discredit to the profession, find a way to get them out of the school.

I joined the union so that I could not be wronged, not so that I could be protected to wrong others.

This is but a small piece of the puzzle. Tenure (a process in desperate need of a new name) is not the beginning and end of the troubles that exist in education, but it is an area that deserves to be addressed.

If teachers would stop resisting honest dialogue about issues like this, we would at least be able to say that we were trying to establish a good discourse.