In response to an earlier post about the $750,000 gift by financial Rex Sinquefield to a campaign to abolish teacher tenure in Missouri, a reader wrote this:
Tenure makes it possible for teachers to be fair. I have known parents to go directly to an administrator who is a close friend of theirs and demand a certain grade or special favor. I have known teachers to be threatened to give favors to certain athletes or children of school board members. Tenure also protects educators from administrators out to exact revenge or simply remove a teacher who they have a personality conflict with. Tenure is there for a reason. In Missouri, unlike other states, an ineffective teacher can be fired, even if they are tenured. All tenure does is provide a due process. That is fair for everyone.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“In Missouri, unlike other states, an ineffective teacher can be fired, even if they are tenured.” In what states can an ineffective teacher NOT be fired? As far as I know, tenure is exactly what was stated: a guarantee of due process. Someone can always be fired for not doing their job, although it (rightly) takes work to make a case against a professional. Shouldn’t this be a basic right that all workers strive to have?
Exactly. As far as I can tell, the biggest (most often used) argument against tenure is that few if any jobs in the private sector have it, so why should public sector/teachers get it? Isn’t the problem with the fact that private sector employees *don’t* have tenure, rather than with the fact that teachers do? No one should ever lose their livelihood without just cause.
Tenure also protects a teacher from being fired because a principal or superintendent wants to hire someone to be the new football/basketball/whatever coach and needs a slot to put him. I have been told by trustworthy people in my district of board members who have been caught going through a teacher’s grade book while she was supervising her students in another room (the board member’s daughter was enrolled in that class), of a board candidate who walked into a district employee’s room (fortunately one with tenure), sat down, and said that if he was elected, he would get rid of the employee, and an administrator threatened by the president of the school board (the parent of one of our students) if the administrator didn’t agree to do something the board president wanted (pertaining to her child). And tenure isn’t as easy to get in Missouri as some states–it takes five years.
Alice, you are right. Tenured teachers can be dismissed for several reasons. We use the word tenure loosely in North Carolina. Instead, we use the term ‘career status’. It does not promise a job for life, but promises due process, which should be a basic right. If nothing changes before 2018, all career status teachers in NC will be on contracts.
I like the term “career status” better than “tenure” for public school (K-12) teachers. I think it will be better understood by the public, since most equate “tenured” with “can’t be fired” or “lifetime job security.”
This video addresses motivation. Tenure to me is similar. In the video, they point out the importance of paying people enough to “take money off the table.” In other words, without having to worry about being able to make ends meet, one CAN focus on work. Tenure is like this. Tenure assures one that they don’t have to worry about losing their job at someone else’s WHIM.
One of the other points in the video involves the study about the difference in what motivates people to perform depending on the type of task. If it’s a rudimentary task, the “carrots and sticks” work. If, on the other hand, the task involves more complex thought, “carrots and sticks” don’t work. It seems that when there’s more to “risk,” performance decreases. This makes sense if one thinks in terms of engaging the frontal lobe of the brain, where more complex thinking skills occur. If one has too much stress about survival, then they are relegated to reacting to the environment. When that stress is taken off the table, the frontal lobe can be engaged, so then they can act ON the environment (creativity).
Tenure takes the stress of losing one’s job for frivolous reasons off of the table… hence, one is more likely to perform better.
I don’t think tenure is required to protect a person from being fired from a job for frivolous reasons. The best protection for that is strong administrators. I have managed to teach for a couple of decades as an at will employee.
Administrators are human beings… with all the frailties that entails. Tenure is one tool to help protect against those admins who might be out for revenge against a teacher who disagrees with them. Just like no one has figured out a way to staff an entire school with all “great teachers,” no one has figured out how to staff entire school districts with all “great principals.” Tenure is a rule that helps guard against that subjectivity.
Wow. You are pretty lucky or know the right people. Teachers must often make difficult and unpopular decisions. Similar to police and we don’t fire every officer when a criminal complains or we would lack a safe society. My experience is the exact opposite of yours. Parents have no trouble going to an adminstrator if they don’t get what they want. No matter how good or strong the administrators are, they too must protect themselves and will not back teachers if their (administrators) job is on the line. Having probably worked much longer than you’ve been teaching in both my private sector businesses and teaching “at will” positions (I’ve never had tenure), I’ve seen very good, dedicated people fired for petty, unfair reasons. And plenty of croonies and relatives get hired or promoted. If you try to stand up for honesty and integrity, you should not have to sacrifice career and well-being. I had one situation where the valedictorian earned an A- in my class several years ago at a public school. She caught a bad case of senioritis and my AP class was difficult. The parents hit the roof and threatened to sue, They went to the school board. My admin was badly shaken and tried to force me to change the grade, even threatening me with trumped up criminal charges. I stood my ground but was forced out the next year. This happens far too often in our gotcha, croony capitalism society. I am amazed you have not experienced this. It is about due process, a very American idea we need more of, not less.
I have certainly failed my share of students over the last 25+ years and the well over 10,000 students that I have taught. No doubt there are problematic students and families. If you don’t have the support of the community, tenure does bat matter. If you do have the support of the community, tenure does not matter.
In most situations, the chance of “the community” understanding the whole story is slight. Laws protecting the privacy of students often prevent teachers from explaining their side of the story to the public. And even in the case of trumped up charges, administrators often hide behind “it’s a personnel matter; no comment.”
I would say teachers do not have support of the community. You have been fortunate. All it takes is one well-connected, vintictive person and you are out. It does not matter how good you are or what the community thinks. Most people in the community could care less unless they are directly affected. Again, it is about due process.
As I remember, you teach on the university level which is an entirely different situation. To compare yourself to K-12 teachers is disingenuous. You are hardly subject to the whims of parents with a little bit of clout unless they gave millions for the football stadium. I’m sure you can debate me but the situation of a university professor is hardly comparable to a seventh grade science teacher.
Actually the families of my students typically pay for each credit hour. A poor grade is money down the drain, both for the family involved and the good taxpayers of my state.
“The best protection for that is strong administrators.”
Wow, you really believe that TE?
In twenty years of teaching public high school Spanish in Missouri, I’ve seen less than a handful of “strong administrators”. One AP specifically who stood up to the principal and refused to file false sexual harassment charges against me. That principal would have probably preferred to have had me escorted out of my classroom in cuffs if I wouldn’t have had due process rights (and the NEA wasn’t much help as they’re as much in bed with the administrators as anyone here in MO).
TE, you must have been incredibly lucky to have encountered “strong administrators” for a couple of decades but be aware that they can be let go on a whim also (unless of course they are tenured which is a totally different concept than having due process rights).
What constitutes a strong administrator in adolescent libertarian land, ann ryand carpet sniffer?
Still waiting on an answer to if you are compensated by the ed-reform movement here…
@nano
Usually people who ask questions are more polite.
I have answered your question several times. No one pays me to post here. I am not employed by any entity that has a stake in how we do K-12 education.
Teachers do not have true tenure, which is a form of job protection granted to college professors and some judges. These people really can’t be fired unless they abandon their jobs or commit a serious crime. Simply put, a person with tenure cannot be fired for doing a poor job.
What a schoolteacher has is “due process” the same job protection that almost all government workers have. This means that you cannot fire a police officer, librarian, city clerk, firefighter or schoolteacher for an unjust reason (to make room for the boss’s niece, to get rid of someone your best friend hates, etc.). In order to dismiss these workers, you must have “just cause” and you must go through a process, as prescribed by law.
Every district in the United States has a process for dismissing a teacher. If followed, this process takes about six to nine months. Of course, if a teacher abandons her job, refuses to do her job, or commits a crime, she can be placed on immediate leave and then dismissed following a hearing or trial.
So why do the vast majority of teachers keep their jobs? Oh, that’s an easy one:
When almost 50% of teachers quit their jobs during the first five years, many districts become desperate to keep the ones they have. And so almost every teacher gets an “effective” or “very effective” evaluation. Most of these people ARE effective because the ones not suited to the job usually quit early in the game.
So it’s not so easy to dismiss a teacher who’s had five years of “very effective” ratings. Should it be?
We’ve just been through a very tough economic time and that’s why districts are suddenly agitating to get rid of the “bad” (i.e expensive) teachers. Now that the economy is rebounding we’re already seeing some big city districts scrambling for teachers again. Only this time, the women without options will not be there. Good.
People should stop using the word “tenure” to describe what teachers have because the public believes that they cannot be fired. What teachers have is “due process.” I have confidence that even if the legislatures take “due process” away from teachers, the courts will not.
Good clarification!
Lindamele, at universities tenure is going the way of the vcr. Now new hires are commonly contract to contract.
In many cases, college professors with tenure have less protection then K-12 teachers. It is a misconception that anyone is protected by tenure. Strong union representation is the only protection most professors and K-12 teachers have. Tenure is just theatrics, if they want to get rid of you they can easily do so.
I’d like to learn more about this statement. Can you elaborate?
What is really funny is that it takes four or five years to be given due process. Up until then the principal’s niece can have your job. Then there is the fact that other districts do not look kindly on not being rehired by your previous district. It doesn’t matter what the reason; it’s bad form.
In Missouri one is granted due process rights on the first day of the sixth year of teaching in the same district. Unless they already have those rights and then it is on the first day of the fourth year in the same district. Move from district to district once every 4-5 years and you won’t get due process rights.
In Illinois, it takes four. I came late to full time public school teaching and never got it. Otherwise, I would still be teaching.
I have seen teachers with 28 years with tenure lose their job because the principal did not like them. Since SB 7 about 3 or 4 years ago tenure in Illinois means almost nothing. The way they do this is by laying off all the teachers at the end of the school year. They then “call back” only who they want. Tenure, seniority, education, experience, mean absolutely NOTHING!
You are right about tenure in Illinois being in name only now. With the economy so wretched, those that have have just about managed to strip almost everything from those who used to, not to mention those who never did. I’m looking to see more shelters and food pantries with some “philanthropist’s” name on them. Maybe we should start offering naming rights to school auditoriums, gyms, and libraries for those schools who have them. It should cost to get your emblazoned across the front of a building.
It’s a good thing this thread is 2013 in review or I would be way off topic.
Tenure in NJ has already been abolished. They call it “Tenure Reform”.
The reason tenure is being eliminated is so that when private interests finally succeed in taking over “public education” the pesky tenure laws won’t interfere with the firing of well paid teachers in order to hire cheaper replacements.
This is all part of the master plan to shovel public education dollars into corporate coffers.
“There’s gold in them there schools” and corporations with the help of “bought and paid for politicians” are coming to stake their claim !
http://teachersdontsuck.blogspot.com/
http://wsautter.com/
Quite correct, sir!
Mr. Sautter, I agree with you too! Enough said!
Tenure is properly used in higher education but is a misnomer in public education. The term should be “Due Process”. Tenure is disliked by most and seen as a job guarantee but due process would have wide support in my opinion. Words matter.
Yes, I strongly agree. Teachers need to stop using the word “tenure” because it is incorrect and represents a “job for life.” In contrast “due process” represents fairness to most people and is much more accepted by the general public.
I think that’s why there are misconceptions about due process or career status. Those terms are not the same as tenure. Tenure does not have the same meaning for K-12 teachers. K-12 teachers with career status are not promised jobs for life.
I do believe that the law in Missouri refers to the process as “tenure.” That’s why we call it tenure here.
Regina, you can call it “tenure,” but it is not like tenure in higher education. Professors are almost never fired. Tenure in K-12 means due process, the right to a hearing.
http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2013/11/that-damn-tenure.html
I’m finding that the terms have been used interchangeably, but it should be clarified that “tenure” in K-12 education does mean “due process.”
Tenure allows teachers to take risks, and risk taking is what allows teachers to become excellent educators. Without tenor we would all become clones of the administrator, we would become ‘yes’ people even if we disagreed with the idea out of fear of losing our positions. No tenure, pretty soon no unions; no tenure, older more experienced teachers, who also make the greater salaries, would soon be terminated. Tenure brings forth the best in a teacher as taking risks makes a great sailor, great artist, great musician, great scientist, great leader.
It’s not tenure, it’s due process rights.
We fall into the discourse of the edudeformers and that gives them a 50 yard advantage in a 100 yard race.
Without some form of tenure or due process why would anyone become a teacher? When a student majors in education they are really only qualified to teach, at least tenure insures some form of protection that they won’t be let go on a whim. When a student majors in accounting, they can work for many companies, in any state, in a wide variety of accounting positions…cpa, accounts payable… the same with just about every other major. A teacher is a teacher and usually only a one state teacher when they are done. They commit to this job, often for the security, never for the money, but usually just because they are good at teaching and love working with children…why is affording them a little security such an awful thing to some people now-days?
Why does anyone become a lawyer, physician, chef, actor, carpenter, plumber, or any other profession? Because they believe they can do a good job and be recognized for doing it.
Fine. Screw this public school nonsense. Let’s privatize the whole shebang. It’s worked real well in Chile, hasn’t it? Kiss your job goodbye. I’m sure there are plenty of economists to teach those who can afford a quality education. Your gifted son? Forget it. You couldn’t afford to give him a decent education. As a matter of fact, why fund any public services. Those who can afford them will pay for them. The rest of us are poor schmucks who don’t deserve them. Can you tell I am angry, yet?
Actually my middle so is mostly sell taught in mathematics, though, of course, all the members of my family exclusively attended public schools in the town where I live and work.
Many essential services are provided through a decentralized market, many essential services are provided through the centralized mechanisms if a firm and a government. The issue is which way to organize works best for the particular circumstances of the good or service in question.
Middle son, not so. Apple does not always know what I mean.
Come on TE, it’s sad that an apple can’t understand what you’re trying to say!! I usually can, not that I agree with you. Hey, maybe that puts me a step above an apple, maybe a peach, no a mango!
There is a whole body of employment law separate from labor law applying to the private sector which also is aimed at providing due process, fair employment practices, etc. I haven’t worked in the private sector in 2 decades, but when I did, the situation was much the same as that described for public schools. That is, you might have a couple of incompetent people, perhaps hired due to nepotism & kept on despite alcoholism or other problems, but it was well-known you couldn’t just decide to fire them if they’d been on board for 30yrs, or risk an ageism suit. Such situations were considered consequent to poor hiring &/or evaluation/ termination practices by management.
Government employees (including teachers) have additional protections under the law. Perhaps an attorney reading here can explain what that’s about. I’d always assumed it had to do with protecting ordinary employees from the whims of politics.
I would add that it must also protect the community members from the impact of political nepotism on the part of the largest employer in the town.
The protections we have under the law are going away as quickly as legislatures can eliminate them. Case in point: North Carolina. Another one: Wisconsin. In Missouri, Rex Sinquefield has been at the forefront of trying to use the legislative process to end our protections, even to the point of attempting to get the state constitution amended. In addition, he is quite active (and somewhat successful) in attempting to eliminate the tax base for public education (mostly by eliminating property taxes).
School Districts have money to hire lawyers who can usually allow them to skirt the laws. It’s not their money, they don’t care.
Unless a teacher is a millionaire or has lawyer-siblings, they can’t afford to go up against the big-gun lawyers the school districts have on retainer.
As an administrator, I am under a 1-year contract and don’t have the protections a teacher has with tenure. I could easily be released after my contract ends. Does this shape my work ethic? Do I take this into consideration when I show up to work on Monday? The answer is NO!
Tenure is another antiquated idea in need of change. Remove this dinosaur from our schools and student learning will be the primary focus.
Administrator, can you find any evidence that states without any tenure have higher student learning than states that do have tenure? I don’t think so.
Professional teachers (and that is the vast majority of us) take offense at the implication that student learning is not the focus of what we do–and that this is “true” merely because we have “tenure.” I prefer the term “career status” to “tenure” anyway; it’s more accurate. Why should we not be entitled to due process?
“Remove this dinosaur from our schools and student learning will be the primary focus.”
This “ass”umption only proves that one need not possess a superior intellect to be in a position of power.
I would be willing to bet that when you were a teacher, provided you were in the classroom long enough, YOU had tenure. You made the choice to become an administrator, to be placed on a year to year contract. And I’m fairly certain you make many a decision with that in mind. Forgive me for thinking you’re a bit disingenuous here. this dinosaur is law for a reason. It allows student learning to be the primary focus.
Tenure is more than due process–the granting of tenure is an investment in a dedicated staff that will stay with a community, grow with it, and take a vested interest in it. Tenured teachers seldom leave their districts to find “better” jobs elsewhere. They stick with the community that invests in them. Without tenure, teachers would job-hop, and those people with the least integrity would stab others in the back just to get ahead or, worse, engage in quid pro quo activities.
Tenure is good for our schools and communities.
I totally agree but the word “tenure” should no longer be used. Has an insurmountable “PR” problem in that it is seen incorrectly as a job-for-life that protects even those who are incompetent. I say let’s replace “tenure” with “due process”. Most people would support due process in my opinion while also removing the ammunition of “tenure” used by those who seek to destroy unions and public education in general.
Words matter. The same folks who have made the word “entitlements” a pejorative, (e.g. the earned benefit of Social Security), have made “tenure” synonymous with incompetence when it comes to teachers. The vocabulary encrochment is everywhere in main stream media.
I’m speaking from 30+ years as a labor attorney (representing govt and management, never unions or employees).
Due process protection for govt employees is excellent public policy. In the private sector, a union contract’s “just cause” protection — essentially the same as the govt employees’ due-process protecdtion — is also excellent public policy.
Due-process/just-cause do not prevent an employer from discharging an employee; they just require that the employer have a good reason to discharge the employee.
Contrary to teachingeconomist’s comment above, in many employment situations one cannot count on a manager’s self-interest to prevent bad discharge decisions.
In govt employment, the manager never has a profit motive and often does not even have an easily-measured good-divisional-performance motive guiding his/her actions. In other words, in govt employment, if a manager discharges an excellent employee for bad reasons, the manager will rarely suffer any adverse personal consequences as a result of the institution losing the services of an excellent employee. The same is mostly true for very large private employers — all private employers have a profit motive, but for very large private employers the adverse impact on profits of a manager’s bad decision to discharge an excellent employee will rarely be significant enough to subject the manager to criticism. Non-profit employers are often similar to govt employers — no profit motive guiding management + top “management” is often a board of directors of major donors/important local citizens who usually have very limited knowledge of day-to-day operations.
These are real-world facts that contradict what they teach in organizational behavior and economics courses.
Due-process/just-cause protection effectively deters managers from making bad discharge decisions. These protections will not deter a good/competent manager from discharging a poorly-performing employee. I represented management for employers of unionized white-collar employees and management successfully discharged poorly-performing employees; usually, the union walked away from the well-document discharge w/o invoking arbitration and, if the union went to arbitration, management usually won. Conversely, knowing that a discharge might be challenged at arbitration in many cases prevented (or allowed me to discourage) a bad discharge decision in the first place. Managers are all human; even good managers can be frustrated by excellent employees who sometimes make the managers lose face or who are holding jobs that the manager would love to give to his/her buddy.
School administrators who complain that due-process prevents them from discharging poorly-performing teachers either lack the managerial skills/resources to document the poor performance or lack the intestinal fortitude to pull the trigger on the poorly-performing teacher.
Always the voice of reason. Thank you, Labor Lawyer, for offering your thoughts from another perspective. It’s pretty amazing that those who use the argument that employee rights protect bad employees do not acknowledge that incompetence in management is possible.
Thank you for your post. I am saving it for future reference. It really makes it sound idiotic that an employee can be fired for any reason before reaching a magical time when an employer is supposed to pay attention to due process rights.
LL,
Excellent information. Thank you.
Always curious as to why due process makes some folks nuts.
I agree, also with Dienne (posted above) who said instead of trying to end due process people without it should be fighting to gain it.
Regarding your last point about school administrators, yes! I have had a great deal of experience with administrators who could not manage to document properly. Of course the admin., to save face, kept telling everyone who would listen that the problem was “teacher tenure”. Those of us on the inside knew that the real problem was bungled paper work.
Thank you. That’s very compelling argument. It ceases to amaze me that those who presume legal due process protects poor-performing teachers are exactly making the excuse for their poor administrative skills to properly document employees’ problems. They should be put under VAM and should be imposed punitive accountability for sub-standard work.
Absent a collective bargaining agreement, (or strong tenure, which no longer exists in Illinois), an employee can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, as long as it is not an illegal reason, such as race, religion, etc.. The real reason can be race or religion, (a bad discharge decision) but they will never admit that was the reason. Generally though, most of the unwarranted discharges I have seen involve long term employees and new managers/principals. The new managers are usually incompetent and become afraid the employees will see that. They want yes-men and yes-women who will go along with whatever they want even when it is very wrong, even illegal. False documentation, changing records, test scores, contractor kickbacks, it goes on and on. Any long term teacher who doesn’t go along will find they soon don’t have a job. They want the employee to cover up for the poor managers/principals and not argue about it. If the employee/teacher goes along with it, they get along just fine. If the wrongdoing is discovered, the principal denies knowing anything about it, and blames the teacher.
In my previous district, tenure was given out as a ‘goodie’ to those new teachers who would do *anything* for the principal or administration. Teachers who stood up for their students or who developed rigorous curriculum with standards and accountability were not rehired and did not get tenure. Read my post on josyread.wordpress.com about tenure, teaching and why tenure can be great when unions are strong, but in districts with weak unions, tenure can be a disaster.