High school is an awkward stage of life where you evolve from a brace-faced kid to something that resembles an adult. The people you meet and the decisions you make during this time hugely influence who you will become. We all had friends who helped us discover exactly how mad our parents could get, but hopefully we have also had friends and teachers that helped us discover our potential. I want to be that kind of teacher. I want to help my future students become their best self, just as many of my teachers did for me.
I was blessed with many, wonderful teachers, but I also had teachers that neglected my education. Most of my teachers are members of the Teachers Union. I respect that, however, when I become a teacher I will not join the union, in large part because of teacher tenure. Tenure does not distinguish between good and bad teachers, and as a result has a negative impact on the education system, and neglects children's education.
I'm sure you have had many experiences similar to that of my brother, Derek. Derek was a straight A student who was always found with a book and loved playing with his friends and school. One of his favorite subjects was math, at least until 6th grade year.
Years earlier I had taken math from the same teacher Derek was. Instead of teaching however, the teacher would pass out the assignment, then proceed to play computer games at her desk while us students struggled lone. She made very little effort to conceal her games from her students, and after our parents learned of what was going on, they immediately contacted the principal, who ensured that it would be addressed with the teacher.
Three years later however, Derek was taking math from the same teacher, and she was playing the same games. Derek came home from school frustrated, and his love for math slowly disappeared.
Tenure had made it almost impossible for the principle to ensure disciplinary action. The purpose of tenure is to protect good teachers from wrongfully losing their job. However, tenure also protects bad teachers from losing their job, and many teachers take complete advantage of that, like Derek's teacher.
Yes, tenure still allows for teachers to be removed, but through a process that is even more costly to the school. According to USAToday, "In New York City, it often costs taxpayers $250,000 just to fire one incompetent teacher". In addition a teacher may stay on pay roll even after being accused, costing additional money. The process to remove a teacher with tenure is so daunting that many administrators do not even attempt to do so--even when a teacher seriously needs to be let go.
The Education system should be focused around students. With policies such as tenure, however, students are neglected. Many suffer more than even Derek did. I hope our students are worth more than allowing an undeserving teacher to "teach".
I wholeheartedly agree that there are teachers that start slacking off once they receive that teacher tenure. I support your stance that schools should focus on having more quality teachers that focus on the students' learning than their own paychecks.
ReplyDeleteHowever, are you removing tenure or are you trying to channge how tenure works?
If you are removing tenure, then what happens to those teachers that are actually still providing a quality service for the students?
Tenure is to protect those teachers from losing their jobs to subjective things like teaching a controversial subject, or non-work related reasons. What happens if you're merely change it? If you remove or change tenure, prospective students who want to become teachers might not want the job because tenure will provide them with a secured long-time job, and that might lower the quality and availability of teachers.
Another issue I have with tenure (and standardized testing and other nation wide school policies) are that they are not localized to the needs of specific schools and teachers. So in response, yes, I think we should completely get rid of it. Instead, I think it would be best for administrators to be responsible for protecting their teachers from such threats and also deciding when and who needs to be let go. I stress the 's' at the end of administrators; I think if policies and process localized to school districts were implemented, then the problems that tenure causes would be avoided, and teachers would still be protected. Those processes should of course involve many people and administrators who can decide in such situations the best way to resolve problems with teachers, instead of a union deciding that all teachers deserve to stay, when some do not even teach.
DeleteWhile reading your post, I was able to recall experiences similar to that of your brother Derek's. It's frustrating to have a teacher who isn't invested in the learning of their students, but what can really be done about that if they're protected by a union? Would you suggest that teacher's jobs be completely unprotected? Should we abolish all existing tenure laws or merely reform them?
ReplyDeleteHow could a school district be able to ensure the quality and dedication of a teacher before hiring them?
Would you propose that school districts require teachers to sign a contract allowing job protection only if they were able to pass an annual or bi-annual mandated teaching evaluations?
What is the definition of a good teacher? I understand that all people learn best differently. Is it possible that students may actually benefit by having passive teachers because they would be learning how to learn by themselves?
Very little can be done about an incompetetent teacher if they are protected by the union, which is one of the reasons I feel so strongly against it. As I said in response to the above comment, I think tenure should be completely removed. Instead I think that decision should be left to administrators and local school authorities, who can decide based upon the needs and circumstances of their schools. Policies and procedures should be in place so that teachers are still protected, but the local authority and lack of union authority (tenure) will avoid allowing teachers that should not be teaching to teach.
DeleteThere are many definitions of a good teacher, and I would love to write a whole other paper about it! Perhaps one of the easier ways to answer this question is by describing the basics of a bad teacher: in this context, someone who takes advantage of his or her tenure, and does not teach students. Bad teachers will put little effort into class, may mis treat students, and more.
I wish that students would benefit from both good and bad teachers, but unfortunately this is rarely the case. In my brother's case, he is a sophomore in high school, and still does not enjoy math, even though he did before that 6th grade year. Teachers who do not care set a poor example for students that they should also not care, and can lead to many negative effects.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete