A reader sends this note, relevant today, but relevant beyond today. It is part of the rightwing assault on the teaching profession. The state gets to define “effective,” then can take the right to due process away from those who don’t meet the benchmarks arbitrarily created by the state, which is eager to fire teachers and make room for teaching temps. I have said it before and I’ll say it again. Teachers without the right to due process may be fired for any reason or for no reason. Teachers without the right to due process will never teach anything controversial. Teachers without due process rights will never disagree with their principal. Teachers without due process rights have no academic freedom.
| IN NEW JERSEY TODAY (6/18), tenure reform bill S-1455 (the TEACHNJ Act) will be voted on in committee. But not by the Senate Education Committee which discussed this bill at length during its March meeting. No, on Thursday 6/14 this tenure reform bill was “transferred” to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee for a quickie vote to be held Monday 6/18. The main purpose of this tenure reform bill is to dismantle the right to due process by making it not only something a teacher can earn but also something a teacher can lose. If an administrator should give a teacher two summative performance ratings on the lower half of a 4-point scale (“ineffective” or “partially effective”), that teacher will then lose his/her previously earned right to due process and can be fired without the opportunity to appeal the decision to a third party. So in other words, in New Jersey a teacher will be able to EARN the right to due process but it will then be TAKEN AWAY precisely when the teacher might actually need to exercise that right. |
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Teachers should be evaluated by more than one person and by those who know what teaching really is, not some of the people put in office because they are friends or family of those in power. Lets clean up administration first so they will judge based on sound educational policies not friendships, budgets, or vendettas. If a teachers breaks a law or goes against their oath then tenure should not apply. If a teacher is weak in any areas they should be given a chance to improve. If they do not improve in a set time period based on multiple evaluations, then they can be terminated. Teachers should not become complacent in their jobs, but constantly look for new techniques and methods to improve. It is hard to keep up the idealism for twenty years, but each year is the first year for that group of students,so every year is the first year for the teacher.
Due process is absolutely essential. It raises the specter of tenure that causes so much distaste in so many people. However, given the nature of our work, if we are to truly educate, there are times we need to be less concerned with our future. I also agree with the previous comment that due process rights/tenure should not create complacency but it is a slippery slope when the right is “modified” or taken away altogether.
Sounds familiar, New Jersey! I remember talking at length to a NJ teacher, gosh maybe now 4 years ago, about the plight you were having with your governor. To think you and others are still and are now fighting to protect our rights is insane. It is a war of sorts.
It’s an absolute war against teachers and especially teacher unions. If tenure is gutted or eliminated, then the administrators will have the license to purge the older more expensive teachers, no matter how great they may be.
Our unions are doing a poor job representing us. Tenure is a radioactive word. People think it means we can stay home and do nothing for 30 years after we get tenure. Why can’t teacher unions lead on this issue and start by calling it due process instead of tenure? Very few people would argue against experienced teachers getting due process. We give due process to murderers. As far as my state of New Jersey, Christie is no friend of teachers. Joe, even if we lose due process they won’t purge most of us good old teachers ironically because they’ll never make NCLB or state achievement goals without us. Instead, many of the best teachers will leave the profession on their own and it’s the kids who will pay the price.
Here’s an update regarding how NJ tenure reform bill S-1455 fared in committee today.
The text of tenure reform bill S-1455 as posted on the legislative web site at this hour still includes a provision requiring principals to revoke teacher tenure after two low performance evaluations.
However, today the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee advanced a substitute bill in which unilateral tenure revocation no longer appears to be a factor. Instead, an inefficiency charge leveled against a teacher after two low performance ratings would result in binding arbitration. The New Jersey Education Association supports the substitute version of the bill because, in addition to respecting due process rights, the bill no longer aims to weaken seniority.
The New Jersey School Boards Association (NJSBA) is not happy to know that experienced, more highly paid teachers will retain the benefit of seniority. NJSBA governmental relations director Michael Vrancik was quoted as saying, “The war is on. There’s more to fight.” http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/06/state_senate_committee_approve.html
Diane Ravitch’s Verdict on NJ’s Proposed Tenure Reform Bill:…
Laura Waters:”New Jersey Has a Bad Idea.” She pontificates further on Sen. Ruiz’s tenure reform bill,It is part of the rightwing assault on the teaching profession. The state gets to define “effective,” then can take the right to due process away …
Call it due process, call it tenure. Doesn’t really matter. What I’m trying to figure out is why do teachers think they should get this when a significant number of public and private firms are “at will” employers. At will, defined in wikipedia as:
At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can break the relationship with no liability, provided there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship and that the employer does not belong to a collective bargaining group (i.e., has not recognized a union). Under this legal doctrine:
“ any hiring is presumed to be “at will”; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals “for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,” and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.[1] ”
Which basically means a company can fire you without needing any cause at all. There are still the federal protections, which prohibit firing or refusing to hire an employee because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or handicap status. But beyond that, technically, they can fire you just because.
But, do you see them doing that? Are they firing people that make more money just to replace them with temps. Guess what. If a company did that, fired all the “expensive people” and hired temps, their productivity would go down and the company would suffer. The companies out there, just like the school districts, aren’t stupid, they’re not going to cut their own throat.
Are there abuses of this, I’m sure there are. But are there abuses of tenure, of course there are. So why do teachers think that there is this evil conspiracy out there against them.
Tim, your attitude about what private workers get and what teachers think they should get is not germane to the point. If you start comparing teachers to everyone else, you better start paying them like everyone else.
HOWEVER, I’ll play:
What teachers should be getting in compensation is far more than the public can provide. Therefore, they accept, as part of their compensation, packages for benefits and retirement. ALSO, they are attracted to teaching jobs because districts make an investment in them called “tenure.”
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want a teaching staff in my community who are all about finding the next best salaried position elsewhere. I want to retain the best and most experienced staff possible. If I invest in the teachers in my community, they’ll stay as teachers IN my community. How’s THAT for a reason to have tenure?
Just trying to understand how my statement:
“Which basically means a company can fire you without needing any cause at all.”
is not germane to the point made in the original posting:
“Teachers without the right to due process may be fired for any reason or for no reason.”
I’m not against retaining the best staff. And absolutely, quite frequently in order to be the “best” you need experience. But experience alone does not make you the best. Just because you’ve been on the job for 4 years doesn’t automatically make you the best. And that’s my point where I think comparing public/private companies and teachers is accurate. Employee’s that have been at a company are very valuable because they bring with experience of working with others, working within the existing processes, knowing the scope of the applications, knowing the habits of the customers, etc. But that experience alone isn’t enough if they are rude to customers, make mistakes on financial records, cause manufacturing mistakes, etc. They should be judged on their performance, just like everyone else.
Now I do understand that performance is hard to measure in teachers. I feel that standardized testing, alone, is a lousy way to tell if a teacher is effective. But that wasn’t the point of my comment. My point is that I feel that employers should have the right to terminate any employee that isn’t performing as well as other employee’s. A significant number of companies have made that move with “at will” employment. And I believe schools should be able to do the same, but, tenure doesn’t allow that.
Tenure absolutely does. Again..it’s called “due process.” I’m sure you’ve made a mistake here or there at work. We all have. Don’t you think you should be allowed to fix the problem without losing your job?
You obviously do not understand the whole concept of “due process.” Instead, you are under the impression that tenure means a teacher cannot be fired. This is ridiculous, and no union would even want someone who is not fit for the job to be in that very job for which the union has negotiated a contract. If you believe that a tenured teacher cannot be fired for ANY reason, you are a victim of common misinformation that is touted by a faction of the political public–information that is completely and utterly untrue.
Here is an example of how this system works: If an administrator/evaluator sees an issue with a particular teacher, he or she brings it to the attention of the teacher. With “due process,” the teacher is given an opportunity to speak to the problem and rectify it. If, after the problem is brought to the teacher’s attention and ample time is given for review of the issue and subsequent performance improvement in that area, the teacher is found to not be doing his or her job to the standards allowed as pointed out by the administrator, the teacher will eventually be dismissed.
“Due process” allows for a teacher to answer on behalf of the “charges” whatever they may be without fear of termination before-hand. Even people charged with a criminal act are innocent until proven guilty. Why can’t the professionals who teach the children of our country be given the same treatment?
Without tenure, any teacher can be fired for whatever reason the administration makes up since no one is checking on the administration for the charge. Of COURSE an employer of a teacher can fire one…with just cause.
Now you DO bring up an excellent point: Who decides what a “good teacher” is? There are far more layers to teaching than some test statistic. The administrators who evaluate are hired to be experts in the profession, and they should know what to look for. If they allow bad teachers to stay in the job, it is their fault. Please don’t confuse their professional judgements with those of the parents who complain that a teacher is “too tough” on their little Johnny or Susie. Let the professionals teach and those who evaluate them evaluate. Otherwise, you will have a witch-hunt every time a parent (whose child lacks simple discipline) complains about a member of the staff. Without tenure you will allow petty complaints and other nonsensical reasons be the impetus to fire one of the best teachers on staff. Sorry, but removing tenure is a very, very bad idea.