I liked a blog I read this morning. It was written by a TFA teacher who came into teaching with a low opinion of tenure. He (and I think it is a he because of the name of his blog) came into teaching sympathetic to the Michelle Rhee claim that tenure is only for the lazy and that real teachers don’t care about it.
But after three years of teaching, he expected to win tenure. Unfortunately, the Bloomberg administration was pressuring principals and superintendents to be parsimonious in granting tenure, so his own tenure was denied for a year. It was denied not because of his teaching (he writes), but because the principal had not done enough observations.
This blog reminds us that it is up to principals to make the tenure decision. Teachers don’t grant themselves tenure. Teachers’ unions don’t grant tenure. Principals grant tenure. If there are “bad” teachers, it is because a principal awarded them tenure.
This blog also reminds us that tenure is not a guarantee of lifetime employment, as so many in the media and in elected office assume, but a guarantee of due process, a guarantee of a hearing before one can be fired. Hearing the evidence against you before getting fired is not exactly un-American.
It is always a hopeful sign when TFA teachers realize that teaching is a career, not just a stepping stone for Ivy Leaguers who want to win a plum job at a hedge fund or want a fast track to becoming state commissioner of education with minimal experience. It is also a hopeful sign when TFAers recognize that there is a reason for teacher tenure, and it is not about protecting bad teachers.
When there are enough dissident TFA corps members, we will begin to see a real change in the national dialogue as these bright and articulate teachers start talking back to those who put them into the job.
Diane
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Some questions that occur to me:
1. If a principal makes an error in granting a teacher tenure, should society be required to suffer from that error for the remainder of a that teachers career? From the standpoint of the community, it seems like the “principals grant tenure” argument is, in some regards, “passing the buck”.
2. Can the system that gives teachers “due process” be improved? Or is it just about right the way it is? It seems that some arguments make “due process” a binary issue — either you have it or you don’t. Even if you believe in “due process”, I think the conversation shouldn’t stop there.
Ken, As others have responded, no teacher gets lifetime tenure; what they get is due process. For the first three or four years, teachers can be fired without any reason or cause. After earning due process, they have a right to a hearing. There is a price to be paid when there is no tenure. Teachers in many communities will not teach about evolution or global warming and will not teach *Huckleberry Finn* or any of the other contested books on the American Library Association’s list of the most challenged books. Tolerant New York City is not the world. Diane
Thanks Diane. I’d love to hear your opinion on whether the NYC process designed to give “due process” to teachers could be improved or is pretty reasonable as is.
We have to acknowledge that a system in which managers or principals make so many “errors” as to hire so many bad teachers who inflict damage on the community, are bad managers, and they should be fired first and foremost. Their judgement is poor, unfortunately managers are unaccountable and in many cases a failure is guarantee for a promotion. Many managers and principals have little to no experience in education yet they are given free hand controlling our educational system. As a matter of fact the education system – like many others – would be better off without those incompetent managers. Decisions can be made democratically by teachers who as professionals, know and care, and are better connected to the students, their families and the community. The people who are truly protected immune and unaccountable are indeed the management class. Whenever there is a success story then it’s the management – principal, superintendent, chancellor, mayor – who get the credit. Those people are absent when fraud or failure occur but only then the “bad” teachers are to blame, with their tenure and “lavish” lifestyles but again those who hired them are speared.
But we will be fool if we truly believe that the people who run the system actually try to provide better service and care about the students. Their main concern is abolishing public education and on the way destroying unionized workers. Obama and Duncan brought the ‘turn around’ policy, which means that any “failing school’ is closed and all its stuff fired. In many cases – like Rhode Island – many teachers who were praised by their supervisors and administrators where indiscriminately fired alongside secretaries and juniors. It is a purge, disregarding between super teachers to bad ones.
If we look at the facts, beyond the usual propaganda we might find that the best performing school systems are the most unionized ( Finland 99% of teachers) according Harvard recent research,
http://her.hepg.org/content/w17t1201442683k6/?p=42ca6b3f7e6b49df8a6d56ee47700d31&pi=0
which contradicts the idea of the bad teacher who can not be fired leads “society be required to suffer”
Crony capitalism sees unions as an obstacle for the extraction of more wealth from the public to the pockets of uncountable tyrannies. As the famous Citi bank memo from 2005 pointed out: “At the heart of plutonomy, is income inequality. Societies that are willing to tolerate/endorse income inequality, are willing to tolerate/endorse plutonomy.” In that sense unions, livable wage and minimum wage are a problem for the plutocrats to bring in ever more wealth to the few. Focusing on that bad teacher is deceiving manipulating way to avoid the great “errors” in our society like inequality and vast child poverty, those can not be fixed even by the best team of teachers available.
“Due process” varies from state to state and even from district to district. I think there is much that could be done to keep the process fair to both sides that can also make it less lengthy, less costly, and less traumatic to all concerned.
It’s worth noting that many schools are successful in removing teachers without going through that process; the phrase typically used is “counseled out” when someone who is not working out is over time convinced to resign.
One barrier is that sometimes a teacher is no longer a fit for a particular school due to changes in student makeup or administration, but has significant financial incentives to stay on, even if it is no longer personally satisfying. Figuring out ways to make pensions more portable and more amenable to people changing districts or professions might make it easier for those teachers to choose to pursue more satisfying positions.
KHirsh,
I am mystified by your thinking. In what conceivable way is the fact that principals grant tenure an “ argument”? And how on earth is such an arraignment “passing the buck”? Who, in fact, is passing it and who is it being passed being passed to?
You write of due process (or as you put it, “due process”) as if it some kind of reckless extravagance and not the bedrock of any just system or any just society and the only defense against a completely arbitrary and capricious order.
What self respecting person would even consider enter the teaching profession without an eventual promise of due process, feeble though it often is, especially at a time when clueless and ruthless predators are doing everything they can do to turn education into just another corrupt and corrupting corporation?
Khirsh- In answer to your questions:
1. It is not “passing the buck”. It is correctly identifying the actual problem. Blaming teachers for tenure issues and tossing out tenure and LIFO is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It doesn’t solve the problem. We must identify the problems in education before we will ever have a chance at solving them. We can take away LIFO and tenure, completely redo evaluations, stand on our heads, until we work out why principals are not carrying out the CURRENT process, we will not make improvements.
2. I agree. And this is one factor that needs be explored. We must know what the problems are in order to make any improvements.
Answers to KHirsh-
1. If a principal makes an error about granting a teacher tenure, then the only thing he or she has done is made it so the administration must follow “due process” to get rid of the teacher. Before tenure or due process is granted, no rules have to be followed at all, you can summarily dismiss for any or even no reason. Due process means simply that they have to follow law is all; it’s not that the teacher can’t be sent on his or her way. And why is saying that the principal is responsible passing the buck?. It’s a fact, the principal IS responsible. He or she makes those decisions. If he or she is not willing to live with such decisions or fix them if they are wrong, well then this person probably shouldn’t be a principal in the first place.
2. I don’t even understand what you mean in terms of can due process be improved. Again, all due process is – is following the correct legal procedures for employee or labor issues. Following the law by nature is rather a binary issue. You either do or you don’t.
Good questions, khisrsh. From what I’ve seen in about 20 years in education, the due process granted to teachers in most institutions is just about right. It requires administrators to show cause for termination procedures, and gives the teacher a right to dispute those claims. There are a few instances, like those documented in “Waiting for Superman” that show how a few teachers have abused or been overprotected by the system. But I think most schools can get rid of a “bad ” teacher as long as they prove that the teacher is, in fact, bad.
Under Tennessee’s new tenure law, teachers can be fired for any reason for the first five or more years of teaching. As of last summer, teachers can not be granted tenure until they’ve taught five years AND scored “above expectations” or “significantly above expectations” on their annual evaluations during the fourth and fifth years of their probationary period. Moreover, a teacher who earns tenure after the new law went into effect (July 1, 2011) can be placed on probationary status if they receive evaluations of “below expectations” or “significantly below expectations” for two consecutive years. The new law does not affect teachers who had tenure prior to July 1, 2011.
50% of annual evaluations are based on administrators’ observations; the other 50% is quantitative–35% based on students’ test scores and 15% of teacher’s choice (choices include things like other tests, graduation rate, etc.) Besides the problems associated with value-added measures, many teachers don’t teach a tested subject. The solution? Based their scores on their school’s scores. Brilliant.
Teachers that were granted tenure prior to the new law being signed are just as likely to have their tenure taken away. The law applies to them too: http://www.tn.gov/education/doc/NewTenureLawFAQs4.27.11.pdf
In California, tenure is granted after two years. Some people feel it should be extended. My observation is that two years is plenty of time to observe a teacher and to decide if this person is someone you want to keep around. Indeed, it’s quite a long time – two whole classes. The argument to wait 5 years (say) suggests that it would be OK to keep a substandard person around longer.
Two years is a nice length of time because it really focuses the principal on the decision at hand. There’s no time to forget that this is a new teacher. The principal is incentivized to observe and mentor the new teacher immediately and closely. The principal will not lose track of “is this teacher in year one or year two”? Who will have at the top of their mind that they are nearing the end of a teacher’s fifth year?
This story just highlights that. The principal did not do observations because it wasn’t a priority in an action-packed, busy day. That means that if our TFA teacher is in fact terrible, the principal doesn’t know and hasn’t acted either to mentor or remove said teacher.
You’re right. I read right over #1.
When will we start talking about getting more decent administrators? You know, the kind that were actually master teachers, not graduates of some management academy? That’s the real issue.
This is a story I’d like to see.
By the way, I am aware there are some very good principals out there. The message above isn’t addressed to them, but rather, managers who just wanted to get out of the classroom after a few years of teaching, or were never there in the first place.
In Florida now new teachers can never gain due prices rights. All teachers can be fired for just cause which now includes “excessive absences or late arrivals”. The state won’t say what excessive is so I guess if you take a day off or have car trouble you can be fired. If anyone wants to be a teacher, Florida is going to have lots of openings in a few years.
I agree with Inverness. Plus, when will we start talking about ways to attact the best people to the teaching profession, and to provide them with incentives to stay in the profession, and to continually improve their work? Isn’t that what businesses do? And aren’t the corporate pundits always saying that schools should be run more like businesses?
First, I am in total agreement that bad teachers should not be given tenure, but good teachers should because it protects them from the political government and vested interest. That is why tenure was established in the first place. Bad teacher have been denied tenure, fired from the profession and never allowed back into the educational system. Tenure does not protect them for live. That is a lie!
I’m somewhat baffled by responses above, because some do not seem to understand that “due process” is a Constitutional right regardless if a teacher has tenure or not. The laws on tenure, as I understand it, simply state that after a certain number of years, good teachers will be given due process protection. This protection allows, under state laws and constitutional laws the right to be heard; the right to present his/her defense to the accused and before the public in an open meeting if requested by the accused.
Amendment V. may possibly be applied even thought it may not be a criminal case against a teacher. ….”nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” To be fired without due process or just cause is to be deprived of “liberty” and “property” i. e. a means of making a living. This is especially critical when there are no jobs available due to our critical recession, and teachers have trained only in one profession or area. If they are fired for political reasons, and I think that is the case that is now happening across the United States of America, then they need to seek collective legal council. The concerned educators and citizens need to stand united to protect good and innocent teachers or others in the profession who are being fired or pushed out by corporate, money making vested interest. The children of our nation are at risk. Our very system of government may be at risk.
That should always be our first concern after these vested interest groups have destroyed local representative government i. e. the elected school boards are being replaced with non elected people; councils, CEO’s etc through charters. This is taxation without representation! WE became free people for that very reason!
Check you state and national constituion to see who gave the government, national, state and local the right to destroy local schools and replace them with charters; many of unknown orgin. In my opinion, this violates Amendment X. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. “To the people” is the key here! When your local schools boards have been replaced by the federal, or state mandates and laws, then you are being denied representative government. You are being taxed without a voice in your local schools for your children, or the money your pay into the public schools. Stand up for your children’s rights and your own. Support you good administrators and your good teachers. Enough is enough!
Amendment XIV may also apply. Section 1. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
I’m not a lawyer, just an ex teacher with a degree in History and Reading, so get a Constitutional lawyer’s opinion. In my opinion, every person in the USA is entitled to “due process”. When I hear that persons are being fired without it, I’m greatly concerned for our nation. When I hear that the people’s schools are being taken over by corporations, mayors, design teams, foundations and you name it, then I sincerely believe we are in deep trouble in this nation. When I see that our children are being trained for the planned workforce, that has little to do with education, then I’m concerned. These children will be educated according to the need of the projected workforce. This is not vocational education as we have seen in the past, this is reverting to serfdom of long ago.
I just read “Stalinizing American Education” by Lawrence Baines, Teachers College Record, Sept. 16, 2011, that Diane mentioned in a previous blog. Pull it up on google and read and print it out by all means. Take it to your Governors, Legislators, and everyone you can reach. I have also studied the Soviet system of training the children for the workforce, and concure that Lawrence Baines has raised many questions that MUST be answered regarding the current restructuring/destruction of our public educational system.
Most people do not have “due process” when it comes to employment. An employer does not have to have a reason to fire you. If they do performance reviews, the reviews are basically a reflection of whether they like you or not and if you are lucky enough to work for an employer who bases such decision only on your job performance you are very fortunate. It is no different in schools, particularly when you do not have tenure. If you have had the chance to read evaluations of teachers an administration wants to fire, you know how ridiculous they can sound. I have always worked for districts that allowed teachers to write a response to an evaluation, but I don’t think anyone ever reads them, and they mean nothing if you do not have tenure. The union has no power until you do.
Diane,
Thank you so much for commenting on my post – I have to admit, I am in complete awe that not only did you repost my blog, but you wrote your own post about the issue!
To be honest, your recent book made an incredible impact on me and as a result, I recommend it for immediate reading to any TFA teacher I know/mentor into the program.
Keep up the good fight!
Best,
– Yo Mista