It's a subject that can make even the most progressive person hem and haw just a little. People who are otherwise die-hard union supporters often distance themselves from it. It drives conservatives absolutely nuts. And I find that it's one of the more misunderstood concepts around.
I'm talking about K-12 public school teacher tenure. (As opposed to higher ed tenure, which is an altogether different animal.)
The number one myth surrounding K-12 teacher tenure is that it means that a teacher has a job for life. If you can find me a tenure law that guarantees that, then I'll...actually, you can't find a tenure law that guarantees that, so I'm not even going to bother making any promises.
K-12 teacher tenure is controlled by individual state legislatures, and codified in state law. Each state's tenure laws are going to vary somewhat. Since I am quite familiar with the tenure law in my state, I will use that law as my example. And although I am not as familiar with the other 49 tenure laws in the United States, I am confident that Tennessee's law is fairly representative of the great majority of those laws. (Note: I am not a lawyer. My analysis is that of a lay person.)
A K-12 teacher in Tennessee must serve a probationary period of three school years, or not less than 27 months in a five-year period. He or she must also hold a valid Tennessee teaching license, issued by the State Board of Education. At the end of each of the three probationary years, a nontenured teacher may be nonrenewed with a simple letter from the director of schools, dated on or before April 15th. No reason need be given, and there is no legal recourse, unless the nonrenewed teacher can prove that there was a discriminatory motive for the nonrenewal. Each year, hundreds of nontenured teachers are nonrenewed by local school systems across the state, for reasons good, bad or indifferent.
K-12 tenure in Tennessee is an "up-or-out" proposition, meaning that each teacher must be affirmatively recommended for tenure at the end of his or her third year, and that recommendation must be voted on by the local board of education. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, for a teacher to obtain tenure by "accident".
Certainly, three years should be enough time for a competent school administration to judge whether or not a teacher is performing at a level high enough to warrant a continuing contract. If they don't make the cut, then they are nonrenewed.
So, after getting tenure, a teacher is set for life, right? Well, no, not quite.
We all know that any employee can develop performance problems after a probationary period is served. Not to worry. The tenure law has that covered.
Tenured teachers can be (and are) terminated for cause, the operative word being cause. What that means is that a tenured teacher is entitled to due process in the form of written charges with specification of evidence and an opportunity to contest those charges, usually before the local board of education, but sometimes (rarely) before an administrative judge. (The charges have to be presented to the board and voted on by the board before they are presented to the teacher. The same board that will hold the hearing and vote whether or not to dismiss. Not exactly a neutral group.)
Tennessee's tenure statute lists five causes for the discharge of a tenured employee: incompetence, inefficiency, insubordination, neglect of duty, and conduct unbecoming a member of the teaching profession. Each of these causes are defined in the law, but they are also fairly self-explanatory. These five causes are broad enough that they can cover just about any performance-related deficiency, as well concerns about behavior outside of the classroom.
A teacher facing dismissal charges has the right to be represented by counsel. The teachers' union provides the services of an attorney to teachers who are members of the organization (in so-called right-to-work states, of which Tennessee is one, union membership cannot be a condition of employment, so membership is voluntary). The attorney will examine the evidence, interview witnesses, prepare a defense, and act as the teacher's advocate during the hearing. A hearing normally takes part of one day or evening to complete. A negative result (dismissal) from the board of education or the administrative judge is appealable to the local Chancery Court. If the teacher is being represented by his or her union, the union attorney makes the decision whether or not to appeal, based on an analysis of the legal merits of the case.
Granted, all of this sounds very dull and dry, but here is the bottom line: K-12 teacher tenure means that, if a board of education wants to dismiss a teacher and deprive that teacher of his or her livelihood, the board of education has to have a performance-related reason for doing so, and has to be able to prove that the teacher is unfit.
Why is this considered such a burden? Isn't that what we pay principals and school administrators to do - to observe and evaluate the performance of their employees? If a teacher is deficient, there should be ample documentation to prove it. If there is no documentation, it's the administration that's not doing its job.
Again, what we're talking about here is due process. Document the deficiencies, present them to the board of education, and let the board decide. It is not a particularly onerous process, but it is a process.
It seems that there is a lot of lip service paid to the teaching profession. People often say that it's the most important job there is. But the fact is that, without tenure, good teachers would lose their jobs because the director of schools wants to hire his cousin or because the teacher is an "outsider" in the community. (Believe me, these kinds of things happen more than you think, especially in little podunk school systems. Nontenured teachers have to deal with this stuff all the time.)
I've heard people complain that since they don't have job protection like that, teachers shouldn't have it either. I have always found the attacking of the rights someone else has fought for to be rather strange. I would think that, instead of attacking, more people would want to fight for basic job protections for themselves and others. Being an at-will employee means that your job can be taken away at any time and, without defined due process, any legal remedy you might pursue is going to be a long and expensive battle.
I am a union member (not a teacher), and I am proud to say that I cannot be disciplined, suspended or dismissed without just cause. This is, basically, a form of tenure, and I won't apologize for it. I believe that makes me a better employee, because I am not constantly worried about being fired for no reason at all. It increases my loyalty to my employer, and it frees me to be more creative on the job.
I hope that this has helped to explain how K-12 tenure works, and that it has dispelled some of the myths surrounding due process and job protection.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
greenheron
Lainey
Jeanine T. Abraham
Cindy Ross
Sparking
Steve Klingaman
Salon.com
Comments
Also, when people get angry that poor teachers are not terminated, it's NOT the fault of the "union." It's always the fault of the administration. Nine times out of ten they haven't done their "homework" and have acquired little evidence other than hearsay or personal opinion.
When I represented teachers "in trouble" the first thing I looked at was the 'folder' of complaints when the superintended put it on the table. The thinner it was, the thinner their argument. The LAW likes evidence.
'For Cause' at least allows an employee a fighting chance. Even then, in some locales, teaching evolution could be deemed 'cause' for termination. That's a scary thought.
Midwest, thanks for your comments. Great point about the parents. Parent complaints can certainly be legitimate, but sometimes parents are just wrong, and a teacher shouldn't lose their job just on the complaint of a parent.
Thanks, Min, for your comments. I'm sure patronage isn't confined to Tennessee!
Lauren, the evolution battle still sometimes flares up here in TN, home of the Scopes "monkey trial". Although academic freedom isn't usually a consideration in K-12 tenure, it can be important. I salute your parents, who were teachers and union members!
Although I teach in Colorado, our laws are very similar. Three years probation and then recommendation for or against tenure is the standard. Even AFTER the tenure recommendation, we are on an "evaluation cycle". Each teacher MUST be informally observed by administration at least 3 times yearly. Every 3 years, a FORMAL evaluation is given, which is in writing; placed in your employment file and you are allowed to respond to.
If any issue comes up at any of these evals., a teacher may have a conference with admin. and address the concern. Mostly, the issues are not big ones, but may be suggestions for how to do things differently, better or other such information.
I can honestly say that the majority of "deadweight" in the teaching profession could be jettisoned through due process, IF the administration properly evaluated and kept records of their observations.
Sadly, I have also been on the non-renewed side of this spectrum. In my very first job, though I had great evals. from my principal and mentor who observed me, I was non-renewed. Largely because my principal and his vice-principal retired and the new principal decided, for very little reason to let go of 7 probationary teachers so that he could "hire people of his choice". All's fair when you are on probation!
It didn't help me to realize that. I was devastated. My "kids" were too. They even initiated a petition, along with some of their parents, on my behalf. Didn't matter a whit...and I had to carry that stigma of "non-renewal" into my next interview. I was humiliated. Luckily, I interviewed with a much "fairer" principal the next time out and he checked my story...and found it to be true.
In Colorado now, the unions have even succeeded in getting a "due process" clause for probationary teachers. What's wrong with this? I think all of us would love to know that unless there is no recourse (recession; student population drop) we might have the chance to really prove ourselves and be evaluated professionally; fairly and productively.
Sorry to highjack your blog *sheepish grin*...but I am an avid fan of teacher's unions and sometimes think they get horrible press! Thanks so much for your support!
Thanks for sharing your experiences.
The last three probably mean show up, do what you're told and don't commit any sex crimes. I'm glad these standards are in place.
Now let's turn to "incompetence" and "inefficiency." Are these absolute or relative concepts, ie do I have to show that someone is just less competent than their replacement or do they have to be incompetent per se? If it is per se, then how is this to be shown? Same goes for inefficient. As for "deprive a teacher of their livelihood," enough with the melodrama. That is what happens all the time in layoff or firing situations which are commonplace, especially these days.
Also, many people have lots of bosses, they are called customers. It is not like teachers are unique in that regard.
K-12 tenure may be a bargained for right that should stand. It probably also protects a lot of incompetent jerks who can avoid creating a messy paper trail of their incompetence. Very often, longstanding union employees are masters of doing the bare minimum. By no means am I suggesting that removing these protections would change much. Non-union public employees are pretty good at doing the bare minimum too. Public administrators generally specialize in acceptance of the bare minimum.
These are all established facts.
''They feel some of the reforms were good, but others not,'' said James T. Butler, executive director of the 97,000-member Texas State Teachers Association. ''The emphasis on academics and smaller class size are solid achievements. But the teachers hate the competency test. The attitude was: 'We are going to make you teachers shape up,' instead of 'Tell us your ideas.' All the reforms came from the top down - the teachers did not have any say.''
Of the 210,000 teachers in Texas, one percent failed a test that was based on 8th grade English. Over 2000 Texas teachers failed a test in 8th grade English. Forget being tested in their subject and to the level taught. 8th grade English. Texas' 2 teachers' unions rallied to defeat the officials who had sponsored the bill. The competency test died as a result.
It'd be much easier to build a case against incompetents if they were tested, ideally in their subject and to the level taught, or 8th grade, whichever's higher. But some people are threatened by that.
What the heck kind of sense does "These are all established facts" make when there wasn't one fact in the comment. Too dumb to believe.
Anyway Jeanette, I heard the other day a phrase that ties in somewhat to your topic:
Two definitions of PTA...
1.) Parents Threatening Action
2.) Principals Taking Aspirin
I'll be checking comments later to see how many lunkheads you get dissing the teaching profession. It's always fun to count the grammatical errors in those comments.
Rated.
it is not established that other jobs have to deal with customers? Yes they do! Somehow they survive this circumstance without special job guarantees.
It is not established that union rules protect incompetence? Please. Ask any poor soul who has to ride heard on a large unionized workforce in gov't. They will tell you that they cannot address all kinds of shirking and mediocrity because of the union grievance procedures.
It's not established that people get laid off and fired all the time without anyone over-dramatizing the situation with expressions like "deprive a teacher of their livelihood?" Yes, that is also a fact.
I am sure that teacher tenure prevents some unfair capriciousness too. Terrific. It is still a mixed bag with a very real downside.
Newsflash: All policies have a downside! It's never all sunshine and sex three times a day. There are costs and benefits to every choice!
It is understandable that teachers want the choices made that maximize their benefit and minimize their costs. It is also understandable that differently situated people (tax payers, parents) want different policies that maximize their benefits and minimize their costs.
That is why we are all in a giant unpleasant competition with one another to see who can get and keep the best deal.
AKA- To paraphrase a bumper sticker, if there are any grammatical errors in any of my posts, you can thank a teacher.
Uh....I rest my case.
you are confusing selective fact finding with the related activity of opinion formation.
Your confusion is understandable.
It still remains true that I did recite some facts, albeit ones inconvenient to the narrative you want to promote. Just as the poster selected some facts convenient to her narrative.
There is nothing wrong with that. Everyone chooses convenient facts.
What is wrong is accusing a chooser of different facts from merely propounding opinion. I propound opinion very merely quite often, just not in this thread so much.
Obviously the opinions I have drive my fact selection, but that still doesn't render my "contribution," such as it is, pure opinion.
A K-12 system without tenure will still be full of both competent and incompetent teachers. It's possible that incompetent teachers will eventually be replaced, but usually by untried teachers who are just as likely to turn out to be incompetent. Tenure will, on the other hand, provide a system by which teachers who have proven themselves over their first three years - that is, teachers who are much more likely to turn out to be good teachers in the long run - will be given the incentives to stay and to grow. It's good for morale. It's good for teachers. And, in the overall, it's good for students and for the school system.
Ideally, all jobs would have tenure systems. But the fact that they don't, yet, shouldn't be a deterrent to supporting tenure where it exists or can exist.
It's a wonder people aren't lining up for the job. (Eye-roll.)
I agree with everything that you have said. Why shouldn't a worker be allowed some protection under the law to not be fired without cause?
Rated. I'd rate it twice if I could.
However, I think you may be able to make a case for teachers requiring unique protection. Teaching is a public position but unlike, say, firefighting and, to a lesser extent, police work, education is fundamentally political. Philosophical disagreements going back to the earliest days of mandatory education in America (1890s-ish) about the purpose of education--namely, what should be taught and why--in addition to questions about parental rights versus societal rights and the role of religion (which was integral to early public schools, unbeknown to most) have all come together to create this profession very vulnerable to the political motivations of disparate groups. I particularly agree with those who've mentioned parents with vendettas and school boards with agendas as reasons to steepen the due process in favor of restraint.
I used to work at a proprietary business college where there was no union protecting the teachers. I felt there was a great need for unionization in that setting because of the vagaries of enrollment. Some long-time, reliable, excellent teachers, many of whom happened to be single women or even single mothers, were frequently subject to abrupt interruption of their benefits, including health insurance, because too few students enrolled that quarter. Often they stuck around anyway out of desperation and were put back on full time when the numbers dictated it, but, really, that's an awful way to live. If we want the cream of the crop to stick around we can't treat them this way. Which brings me to the second argument for the "specialness" of the teaching profession.
In terms of worth to society, teachers are way up there. At the risk of getting into a value competition, I might say that the above scenario, while perhaps also descriptive of management consultants or contracted computer specialists, matters more when applied to teachers. I happen to think teaching is among the most influential professions when it comes to dictating the kind of society we will have.
All that having been said, I have my problems with teachers' unions. In addition to what I see as a resistance to innovation on many levels, I also think an outcome of the due process you mention is a plethora of deplorable teachers. Spelling it out like you do certainly demonstrates its reasonableness, but for whatever reason, there are many substandard teachers.
My bias is to improve the general excellence of the profession with carrots, not sticks. I'd like to see a massive infusion of pay and a profound reduction in class size (to something like 10 kids max per classroom). Let the free market work, and the cream of the crop will overtake any slackers. So what if a few bad apples get overpaid in the transition? They'll be out soon enough, and it's worth it in the long run because high school valedictorians now going into engineering will be rushing the entrances to get into education.
As a final note, I often think when I'm in schools (as a substitute teacher) that parents really need to see their kids in action. They might be astounded. Teaching is awfully hard work. As a society, we ought to be doing what we can to keep the best ones in the classrooms.
Emma--I serve most of my customers/clients year-round, and for years on end. They often call me late, make me meet them on weekends. I don't get a winter break or summers off. I understand the point, though, just no sympathy from me, or probably any other self-employed persons.
Also, I like Sib's approach: given that either system (tenure or non-) will err, can we say which errors are preferable? I'd rather err on the side of a few bad apples than make teaching completely (as opposed to almost completely) undesirable to people who would make good teachers. Nota bene, I would favor competence testing for teachers in basic skills and subject taught, as an index of defining a kind of incompetence.
And finally, I think Jeanette hit one nail on the head near the end. Many of the attacks on tenure seem to come from resentment. The problem of incompetent teachers can be handled in ways other than ditching tenure. Yet there are good reasons why it benefits education. We do treat some types of work differently for appropriate reasons, e.g. the higher criminal penalties for killing a police officer as opposed to an ordinary citizen.
Great post and well argued. The truth is all jobs deserve the same protection, to have due process before being fired...but, you know, free market system and all that. I guess workers are supposed to lay down their rights for the good of the system. Hmmm? workers giving up their rights for the good of the system...sounds a little like socialism, doesn't it?
As a teacher, I don't make many fans when I admit that our system needs some fixing. There are some very bad, inefficient, and apathetic teachers in every district. I'm not sure that firing them is the only answer, though. I understand that having bad workers in the teaching profession isn't the same as having bad workers at the coffee shop, so I do understand the anger sometimes by parents. However, we've all seen the pendulum on the other side, and that is hardly fair or rational, either.
Something has to change. The way the schools are funded now always pits the community against the teachers. That coupled with No Child Left Behind leaves only the teachers to blame for a failing education that we all know can't be placed squarely on the teachers' shoulders.
Thanks for this insightful post.
"Very often, longstanding union employees are masters of doing the bare minimum..... Non-union public employees are pretty good at doing the bare minimum too. Public administrators generally specialize in acceptance of the bare minimum.
These are all established facts."
I don't think those are established facts. After all, Barack Obama is a public administrator and I don' t think he specializes in accepting the bare minimum. That is an extreme example but my point is that your typical DMV worker is not representative of all public employees.
Several others have rightly pointed out that the creation of tenure as a due process has the benefit of giving teachers a fair shake but also means removing a teacher is a significant investment in time and money that likely means that some sub-par teachers are able to get by because there is virtually no competition for their job.
Don't get me started on NCLB--- When test scores are good the system crows about what a good job it is doing. When they stink they say the testing is flawed. If a teacher's students do poorly year after year on standardized tests is incompetence?
In Colorado, this must go through an election, since we have a "taxpayers bill of rights". It is a murderously difficult thing to convince people to fund schools. I have been on the front line during two mill levy campaigns and it is a tough slog.
Particularly retirees, who have no children at home, are difficult to convince. In order to have 10 (?) students per class, the amount of teachers would have to increase exponentially. In order to retain them...salaries would have to rise. How?
Another proposed solution, "merit pay" is certainly more promising...if actual educators are allowed to set the criteria of "merit". It can't just be test scores. That is the ESSENTIAL difference between "business" and education and the one that seems most often to escape the politician and non-educator's grasp...see our "product" has a mind of its own. Denver Public Schools, under then superintendent, now Senator Michael Bennett came up with what seems to be a good prototype of a merit pay system, but it too has its detractors: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-01-04-oppose_x.htm
The widget approach of counting test scores is not valid. I could be an AP or "honors" teacher (which I am) and have students that score extremely well on standardized tests. I don't think that is a reason to give me merit rewards. On the other hand, people who teach E.S.L (which I also do) or Special Ed. should not be penalized by a salary system based on the "merit" of high test scores, which their students may not ever be able to achieve.
There is hardly another profession I can think of where the "product" can choose to perform or not, depending on whether it "broke up with it's boyfriend"; "is homeless"; "had West Nile Virus" or just "has a bad attitude.". That's the pointed difference. Sometimes kids just decide not to do well. They don't like you; they don't like the topic; they are tired. That's why merit pay is scary to teachers. Sometimes there are even differences between classes before and after LUNCH for heaven's sake.
I don't really know the answer, but I do know that we aren't all just putting in our time till we retire. I love teaching. I continue, 14 years in, to try to do it better every year.
It also seems that the critics overlook one very important distinction between public school teachers and people who work in private business -- there is no profit motive in public education. Consequently, there is no profit-based incentive to hire and retain the best administrators, managers, supervisors, or rank-and-file employees. That means that in places like Grundy County you can wind up with elected Board of Education members -- the people responsible for making local education policy decisions -- who dropped out of school in the 8th grade. They don't understand education, but they understand local politics and how to get elected. And they care less about keeping good teachers than they do about passing out political favors that will keep them in office.
There is a fundamental difference between government employment and private employment -- the presence or absence of a profit motive. That, plus the problem with elected political officials misusing their power for political purposes (since they are not judged by shareholders based on profits), justifies tenure laws, civil service regulations, and other similar provisions that protect the rank-and-file government employee from arbitrary abuses of power.
At the end of the day, you still have it right -- if a school system has an incompetent teacher, the school system can get rid of that teacher, tenured or not -- it just has to go about it the right way.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/31/090831fa_fact_brill