What goals do we have as educators that might replace the arbitrary measurements imposed on us from outside sources? Conversely, which current measurements do we support and wish to bolster with our own self-assessments and self-reflection?
In the early years of my career, we all were required to go through TESA training (Teacher Expectation Student Achievement) which I still consider to have been incredibly useful. Many of the techniques in Lemov's book, "Teach Like a Champion" draw upon similar ideas. One of the important features of TESA was the need to give feedback to fellow teachers in the program, through direct classroom observation.
For example, if I wanted to work on "No Opt Out" and "Wait Time" as teaching skills, I would find someone with a prep period during my class, and ask them to come in and observe me, tracking how many students are able to slip through the net during the discussion, and how long I wait before I reframe the question, pass the question to someone else, or answer the question myself. We would then sit down with our colleagues and discuss strategies for improvement. Perhaps at the end of the quarter, I might then compose a brief self-reflection to keep tabs on what I have improved on in the previous quarter, and write down my goals for the next.
It seems to me that the union members should establish some criteria to define effective teaching, and change the guidelines by which a teacher can be fired. To some degree, the problem of not being able to fire bad teachers seems to be a failure on the part of administration to do the necessary legwork, but that is almost understandable in light of their chance of success. Maybe if the union determined more reasonable guidelines and agreed not to fight termination of teachers who clearly do not live up to those guidelines, it would go a long way towards rectifying the public perception regarding tenure. Obviously, these guidelines would have to be tied to something other than test scores.
For one thing, I think every teacher should be evaluated regularly. The idea that teachers with more experience should be reviewed less frequently doesn't really hold water, if I'm being honest with myself.
I like what Chris said about having collegues give feedback on how effective your teaching is. Who better to judge a teacher than a fellow teacher? It would be nice to have someone who has dealt with supervising labs and teaching similar material to come in and watch what is going on to give proper feedback and helpful suggestions that work in his/her classroom.
I like the idea of giving feedback to each other through direct classroom observation. One exciting potential I see here is the chance to share different models of good teaching. I want to trade ideas both practical and theoretical, and if there has been a war in education between practice and theory, I don't want to take sides. To me they are the body and mind of what we do in the classroom and their separation is illusory. I want to learn each other's techniques and form successive reading groups with a range of texts, some of which may offer seemingly contradictory advice. Sometimes a contradiction is a paradox in disguise. A good teacher does x but also sometimes its opposite depending on the context, the authentic personality of the teacher, or the unique individuals in the room.
I want to have lively discussions and even debates about what makes a good teacher. I regret that I was unable to attend the Teach Like a Champion discussion group but I've ordered the book and plan to read it. I want to know what is exciting to my fellow teachers and I want them to know what is exciting to me; if our inspirations or approaches diverge then I want to feel energized, not threatened, by those differences. I want to savor the conversation while it's alive and kicking, not squirm in anticipation of its closure. Closure = dead teaching. Keep many questions alive and many doors open.
When teachers feel demoralized by the onslaught of negative teacher press, pay cuts, stressful working conditions and an increasingly authoritarian education establishment that outsources control of their profession to corporate foundations, I would argue they are far less apt to be self-reflective and collaborative. If we want to redefine our profession then we have our work cut out for us. I believe openness and democratic decision-making from the ground up lead to better teaching, but here we are in a climate of reticence and fear. The sword of Damocles is hanging over us and IB-style risk-taking is frozen in terrified submission to the coming disasters. Those already upon us have left us in shock and disorientation.
This is no universal explanation or excuse for the stunted teachers among us, those who have failed their kids by checking out year after year and going through the motions. I want to point out here that the culture of incessant testing is likely to exacerbate bad teaching, for people on autopilot in any profession tend to gravitate to regimented curriculum. Lazy people like to be told what to do and how to do it, to read from scripts, to ignore the spark of critical questioning wafting up from a corner of the room they would rather yank back to some pro forma task. Give us your marching orders and we won't ask questions! Those are not the people we want teaching our kids, and we are not going to be getting rid of the deadweight unless we battle the testing establishment as passionately as we grapple with our own inertia. Yes, we need to kick each other's butts into high gear, inspire each other and the kids! Only let's forget that what's outside is very relevant to what's on the inside.
Read above for a concise, recent account of the tenure controversy. (Soon I will figure out hyperlinks...I hope.)
In terms of tenure and the supposed difficulty of firing teachers, I would like to compile statistics beyond anecdotal impressions. I'm not merely talking about our district but the country as a whole. I too have heard from one administrator friend in a nearby district that it is hard to fire a bad teacher, so I am not claiming there is no issue. However, if we are going to seriously discuss reforming tenure then we need to know what exactly the law says and decide from there whether administrators are unduly burdened by the due process entailed. I'm not convinced.
Do states without tenure or unions get better learning results (by our current standards)? Do they even fire more people? My understanding is that they don't, but correct me if I am wrong. We also have to remember that many teachers (half?) drop out after the first few years and, effectively, fire themselves. We also can't forget that teacher tenure was originally about protecting teachers from being fired on the basis of race, sex, political beliefs, etc. In fairly recent history in the Bay Area, as one is reminded of in the film "Milk," teachers were fired for being gay. As I mentioned in a previous post, the growing and unfounded link between teacher evaluations and student test scores makes tenure even more critical. At-will employment is arbitrary and workers are left with little recourse if they are fired arbitrarily. Basically, I am loath to surrender what labor movements of the past have bequeathed to us. Public unions are under so much attack because private ones have been mostly crushed, and we need to fight for what rights remain on behalf of all working people. Jobs and professions without due process should be more like us and not the other way around.
We are all Wisconsin! Simone Harris Montgomery High School
I think if every faculty at every site had a panel of master teachers (perhaps composed of department heads, but not necessarily) who evaluate their colleagues, as Donna recommends, on a regular basis, who have the authority to insist on additional training for struggling teachers, and then ultimately to recommend their removal after a designated period of time if performance does not improve, then, indeed, tenure laws could be stripped down or removed entirely.
Protections from firing based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, political belief, etc. exist broadly for every worker in this country and do not require special tenure laws. Furthermore, what current tenure laws fail to take into account is that teachers can demonstrate all sorts of competence for the first few years until tenure is earned, and then switch on auto-pilot for the rest. There is no motivation--other than a teacher's inherent desire to achieve excellence and/or her love for her students--to reach to the highest possible standards of our profession. This is the fundamental flaw of tenure.
Tenure is far too automatically granted and is based, in our district at least, on having survived in the classroom for two to three years and on there being an open tenure slot. I feel no pride in having been awarded tenure. It does not mean anything and has no bearing on who I am as a teacher. If tenure were more like being named a partner in a law firm, or if it were even just more like earning tenure at a university, where at least it is based on publishing significant work in one's discipline, then I would push more for its safekeeping. As it is, tenure is a meaningless anachronism.
I suspect that the fight against tenure is also somewhat grounded in the fact that older teachers are more expensive. Administrators with a more corporate mentality might do simple calculations such as the fact that they can get two rookies for the price of one veteran, and if the results are similar, then why not? This is the only part that I fear about losing tenure. But frankly, perhaps the problem here is not tenure but the graduated salary schedule. If we were paid based on competence rather than experience, on results rather than time served, then a veteran teacher has nothing to fear if he continues to deliver the goods.
To return to the "master teacher panel" notion I floated at the beginning of this post, I would say that the function of such a panel would not merely be to identify, retrain, and, as a last resort recommend the removal of struggling teachers, but also to defend highly effective teachers from harassment and arbitrary firing. This is what our union should have been doing all along, but I think it is more appropriate at a site level.
If you want an eye-opener, go check out the standards for National Board Certification in your teaching discipline. Achieving this would certainly be a meaningful accomplishment, much more so than earning tenure.
http://www.nbpts.org/
I think I have an idea what my next year's EPIC project will be. If some of us can do this as a cohort, we can not only support each other, but distribute some of the preparation costs.
As far as I know, we only have one National Board Certified teacher at Montgomery: John Quintrell. Not surprisingly, John is also the guiding force behind the "Teach Like a Champion" group.
We all like to claim we are excellent teachers. Who is willing to prove it? If you want to start this process with me, let's have a lunch meeting in Room 81 sometime soon. If you are at another site besides Montgomery High, let's go get a frosty beverage somewhere and talk about this.
I do not want to see permanent status go away. I just want to see a more reasonable approach to firing bad teachers. But I will also state that I don't feel there are very many who fall into that category. We all have certain strengths and weaknesses; we may not all be superheroes, but most of us truly strive to do a good job and challenge ourselves to keep improving in responding to our students' needs. I don't think there are huge numbers of teachers who would fall into the "should be fired" category even if firing them were made easier.
Just one quick fact check on discrimination: only 21 states have laws that protect workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation. (http://www.takepart.com/news/2011/02/25/dont-ask-dont-tell-is-alive-and-well-for-gay-educators) and this makes gay teachers a very vulnerable group in many parts of the country. Even in states with explicit protections, we have to remember that legislation changes with the political times. Stripping away tenure can leave any marginalized group or opinion more exposed, and this becomes increasingly dangerous in reactionary times. It's a great idea to assign a Master Teacher Panel to defend teachers against harassment or discrimination, but they can't bear full responsibility for that task; no group, regardless of its teaching caliber, can be entrusted with individual rights which must be sealed in the law.
Thanks for the article link. I had no idea that over half the nation still lacks employment protections for sexual orientation and gender identity. Frankly, that's barbaric. Ironically, Wisconsin, which is currently ground zero for the union battle, was the first to adopt such a law. Go figure. Thankfully, California has one now. I regret the comment I made earlier, which was based on faulty information. I suppose the naive me simply assumed that because we have it here, we have it everywhere.
Nevertheless, those protections need to be enshrined, as Simone says, in law. Specifically, they should be enshrined in federal employment law. Tenure for educators is not the place for such a law. Are there marginalized groups in society? Certainly. This is an undeniable and sad fact. However, those groups work in every profession. Why are teachers singled out for the extra protection of tenure? This goes to the very heart of public resentment of us.
How is there any kind of justice in keeping a grizzled veteran who treads water every day, while giving the passionate, energetic newcomer a pink slip? This is the very definition of absurdity. We need to reform education with the best and the brightest, not the ones who merely show up every day.
"They can't touch me" can be said with a sigh of relief that persecution has no power over us. "They can't touch me" can also be said with the sly grin of someone who has gotten away with something. I hear both. Tenure protects both impartially.
It breaks my heart when I think about who is going to get a notice. It breaks my heart when I think about who is not.
Chris, your new Epic Project idea sounds exciting!
I think you are right that more experienced, and thus expensive, teachers are targets of the movement to abolish tenure. I'm not saying that experience automatically leads to excellence, but I don't know if I would dismiss a connection either. It seems to me to be one very important factor in determining competence in any field. So does a quality education. I realize not all teacher programs and Master's degrees are equally challenging and fulfilling, but I rather appreciated mine.
I don't mean to suggest this is your position, but I hear a lot these days that new recruits who enter this field with no background in either subject matter or education are somehow preferable as administrators or teachers, as long as they get "results." Why? They often have some corporate sponsorship and have imbibed ideology that does not threaten corporate interests.
I'm not saying there aren't fantastic teachers who are fantastic for reasons other than academic preparation or experience, but we can't take the latter two out of the equation. Imagine if we evaluated doctors that way. I don't want a doctor who has had only two years of experience just because his/her patients who were treated for high blood pressure are doing well at the end of those two years. Would anyone expect that doctor to be held accountable for a patient's diet, home environment, or genetic history, all things that can contribute to high blood pressure? What about the poverty that afflicts millions in this society and that may have contributed to poor eating habits, or the domestic and drug abuse that took place in some of those patients' homes, raising their stress level and blood pressure?
I'm not saying it's a perfect analogy or that we teachers shouldn't proceed from the premise that we can transcend all sorts of barriers to giving our students a quality education. We have to push ourselves every day, keep our energy, faith and love high. But we are a profession, tenure or no tenure, that is judged according to a standard I don't see for very many others. None of us can control the many factors that go into a quality education. Nobody, no matter how brilliant and talented at this job, is God or Superman, but sometimes it's almost as if we are expected to be. And the irony is that any sustained excellence must arise from the constant humility of this recognition.
My teacher program and graduate work helped set the tone for the continual reflection and refinement that is good teaching. Beyond everything else, I remember that habit of mind being encouraged and it is one of my greatest tools. I learned a lot in those years. I had a fantastic professor who inspired me, became a mentor and even colleague for a time, and is now my cherished comrade in this field. I had the opportunity to do graduate work in my subject matter as well as in education. Excelling in challenging academic settings, doing a pre-practicum and practicum with multiple classroom visits, evaluations, written reflections, and oral presentations, all this culminating in a lengthy portfolio compiling work over a two year period, should COUNT toward competence even if it isn't the sine qua non, which it most decidedly isn't.
Continued from above: There are so many different kinds of good or excellent teachers who bring a variety of wonderful qualities to the profession, some intellectual, others emotional, moral, aesthetic or and/or spiritual. Results are important, but we need to expand that concept to include multiple measurements because frequently, the numbers that incite a competition between a potentially collaborative community amount to a dunghill of meaningless data with little statistical validity.
Chris, you introduced me to Sir Ken Robinson. He points out that not everything important in education cannot be measured with data. Check out p. 22 of this link: http://filmenglish.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/transcript-sir-ken-robinson.pdf "At the heart of every scientific process is not the data, it is the judgement you make about it." On the same page he says three things that make a good teacher: knowing your subject matter, pedagogical skill, and love. The Teach Like a Champion techniques sound incredibly useful in honing skill! But nothing generates love but...love. It's the spark inside that is daily lit by colleagues, students, loved ones, community, moral and political convictions, aesthetic and intellectual passions, etc.
I am pretty self-effacing about my teaching. I have days I think I've done a crappy job and I feel them in my gut. I feel the daily and weekly stings of missed opportunities and moments, ill-timed remarks, neglected intuition, careless choices that I wish I could rewind. On other days I know I'm on fire, and it is not me, per se, but a oneness with what I'm doing, a joy that is coursing through me, the students, and the room. Why I am blessed with those days is not utterly baffling or irrelevant to my preparation, intelligence, or skill set, but it is mysterious and sacred in the best sense. I shudder to reduce everything beautiful in life or learning to great recipes or measurable outcomes. It just doesn't work like that.
I would never claim the IDENTITY of excellence. Excellence is in doing, not being. But one thing I will say is that I love to be in the classroom, I love the kids, and I love the literature we read together. I guess I'm an intrinsically motivated fool, but I really don't think it's carrots or sticks that are sustaining me on this journey, and I don't believe I am special in that regard. I think there are millions of brave and beautiful teachers who are lit from within by a spark that tenure, or its supposed complacency stemming from too much security (not so much in evidence these days), can't extinguish.
It's not the threat of losing my job that keeps me motivated, and I'm pretty sure that the chronic fear and insecurity of the average work place in America isn't a fount of creativity, critical thinking or joy. I want for teachers what I want for my students: nurturance, joy, acceptance, challenge, creative stimulation, passion and love. And I want freedom from the behaviorist veil that hangs over our humanity. It's not about controlling behavior or performance or what we see on the outside, so much as it is about honoring what is on the inside and helping it grow. There many paths to that goal. Simone H Montgomery
We are actually a great deal more similar than you realize, Simone. You are most definitely not the kind of teacher I have been criticizing. The whole notion of being self-effacing as a teacher is exactly how I see myself, too. (I even wrote a poem for this year's EPIC project, called "Self-Effacing," so I hear you on that score.) I am constantly riddled with self-doubt, but it's a healthy kind of self-doubt in that it spurs me onwards to get it right next time. It sounds like you do the same. I believe that is at the heart of what makes our profession a true vocation, a calling, the desire to always be finding a better path, to reach more kids, more often.
This is why I am working on my skill set this year. This is why I think I want to try for National Board Certification next year (and I still hope other wants to join me, since that will be a lonely road to go alone).
Your students are so lucky to have you. Thanks for keeping the fire lit for us.
Thank you, Donna. Meanwhile, I am fixated on my double negative typo in the second comment and longing to edit the last line of the first to "sine qua non or guarantor of it." Is this a good time to mention that, much like in the case of Facebook, we have no edit button on comments?
Thank you both for challenging me to refine my thoughts on tenure. It's a tough issue. I agree with Chris that teachers don't deserve tenure more than the rest of the work force. For me it comes down to wishing the rest of the work force would fight for the same level of job security. I'm not big on cutthroat competition as a motivator, but on the other hand we can probably all agree that where there is mediocrity in any profession, we need to do all we can to stamp it out. We may just differ on how to dispose of it in self and others, but dispose of it we must. Young people are precious and we should not entrust them to people who are going through the motions, nor should we excuse ourselves for going through the motions. Life is too short.
On an earlier point, there are so many rights I'd like to see enshrined in and enforced by the law, not least of which is right to a living wage. Tenure would be irrelevant if we could ensure these rights, but then it emerged from the struggle to do just that. The labor movement, such as it is, needs to draw connections across all jobs so we can stand united. Divided, we fall.
Back atcha, Chris! I respect and admire you and this kind of conversation is so inspiring to me. How are we going to get others to join in? We may have to go on strike until someone else posts. Chris and Donna, you in? Walkout!
Is there any way to get a hold of the actual guidelines for dealing with underperforming teachers so that we could try a redraft? Maybe if we came up with better language -- language that takes into account what we truly expect of one another (which is not perfection, but self-reflection and a desire and effort to continue to grow and respond to student needs), we could actually present a redrafting of the guidelines. Wouldn't that be radical? Hey, CTA, here are the changes we propose to the tenure guidelines!
I gotta add, though, that this is only one problem facing our profession right now. I think we need some more discussion under "Fighting for our schools." Yes, it would be good if we addressed this valid concern. But this alone is not enough to change the current climate. It's only one piece of the puzzle.
...and Chris, I can't even imagine finding the time for a national certification. It's a massive undertaking! My job is already about 85% of my life. Do you really think the label is worth the effort? I mean -- it's not just another title?
I've definitely thought about that, Donna. But it is a title that is actually meaningful, because it is not automatic.
I really want to help move our profession more into the realm of "professional" rather than working class. Lawyers have to pass the bar exam. Doctors have to be board certified. If we want the respect, I think we have to show that we are willing to step up and earn it. I don't know. I'm not a very political person. I don't make picket signs. I am good at school. The NBCT certification is something I feel I can do for the profession, and for my own sense of pride. I have no doubt I will become a better teacher as a result, so the kids win, too.
I'm all for amassing more knowledge and credentials. If I could study in a university setting for half the year and teach the other half, I would be in heaven. Rock on with your bad NBCT certification, Chris! My only caveat to any "let's get more professional boosterism" is that I believe many of us are already extremely qualified in our fields and have done considerable academic work to get to this point, never mind the work we do every day on the ground in our classrooms. I don't want to contribute to a public misconception that teachers are mentally lazy or intellectually unimpressive. Some are, sure! But if half of all new teachers flee the trenches in five years, doesn't that say something for those of us who stay? It's not exactly like tenure dropped from the sky one day while I was pleasantly daydreaming on a warm summer afternoon. This job is HARD if done right, and I know some brilliant, intellectual types who wouldn't last one minute in a classroom. It's not easy to discuss "Waiting for Godot" with a heater loudly sputtering in the background. I say to disapproving members of the public: Try explaining that existence precedes essence in one breath and with the next lecturing students on why it's not okay to say "existentialism is so gay." The social, cognitive and moral dance has a complicated rhythm, and it ain't easy to do with mouse excrement piling up in the corners. That brings me to my next post...
I am torn on this issue. Obviously, we want to always improve our craft, but I also fear the perception that we are not well enough qualified as we are. Our training is already extensive, and those of us who are motivated are always making efforts to improve. I'm not sure that national certification is going to give us anything we are not already doing and I am not convinced that it will change public perception. If I thought it would, I'd be in with both feet in a heartbeat.
This editorial is a worthy read. Of course, we all already know this, but it's nice to hear someone in the national press acknowledging it -- especially since David Brooks is generally very conservative.
Donna, I bet nationally certified teachers never split their infinitives. kidding, of course. I'll get a testing thread up soon for this article. Read it. Interesting. Not on topic, but his line about our government being "unprepared for the psychological aftershocks of Saddam's terror" bugs me. What about the aftershocks of 'Shock and Awe'? Were we equally unprepared to find that bombing and killing isn't a smooth path to democracy? Anyway, it's an interesting piece. I think that grades, high stakes tests, and incessant measurements do as great a disservice to reason as to emotion, but maybe that goes back to the two being inextricable. I hate the phrase "human capital."
In the early years of my career, we all were required to go through TESA training (Teacher Expectation Student Achievement) which I still consider to have been incredibly useful. Many of the techniques in Lemov's book, "Teach Like a Champion" draw upon similar ideas. One of the important features of TESA was the need to give feedback to fellow teachers in the program, through direct classroom observation.
ReplyDeleteFor example, if I wanted to work on "No Opt Out" and "Wait Time" as teaching skills, I would find someone with a prep period during my class, and ask them to come in and observe me, tracking how many students are able to slip through the net during the discussion, and how long I wait before I reframe the question, pass the question to someone else, or answer the question myself. We would then sit down with our colleagues and discuss strategies for improvement. Perhaps at the end of the quarter, I might then compose a brief self-reflection to keep tabs on what I have improved on in the previous quarter, and write down my goals for the next.
C Schloemp
Montgomery High School
It seems to me that the union members should establish some criteria to define effective teaching, and change the guidelines by which a teacher can be fired. To some degree, the problem of not being able to fire bad teachers seems to be a failure on the part of administration to do the necessary legwork, but that is almost understandable in light of their chance of success. Maybe if the union determined more reasonable guidelines and agreed not to fight termination of teachers who clearly do not live up to those guidelines, it would go a long way towards rectifying the public perception regarding tenure. Obviously, these guidelines would have to be tied to something other than test scores.
ReplyDeleteFor one thing, I think every teacher should be evaluated regularly. The idea that teachers with more experience should be reviewed less frequently doesn't really hold water, if I'm being honest with myself.
Donna
MHS
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI like what Chris said about having collegues give feedback on how effective your teaching is. Who better to judge a teacher than a fellow teacher? It would be nice to have someone who has dealt with supervising labs and teaching similar material to come in and watch what is going on to give proper feedback and helpful suggestions that work in his/her classroom.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of giving feedback to each other through direct classroom observation. One exciting potential I see here is the chance to share different models of good teaching. I want to trade ideas both practical and theoretical, and if there has been a war in education between practice and theory, I don't want to take sides. To me they are the body and mind of what we do in the classroom and their separation is illusory. I want to learn each other's techniques and form successive reading groups with a range of texts, some of which may offer seemingly contradictory advice. Sometimes a contradiction is a paradox in disguise. A good teacher does x but also sometimes its opposite depending on the context, the authentic personality of the teacher, or the unique individuals in the room.
ReplyDeleteI want to have lively discussions and even debates about what makes a good teacher. I regret that I was unable to attend the Teach Like a Champion discussion group but I've ordered the book and plan to read it. I want to know what is exciting to my fellow teachers and I want them to know what is exciting to me; if our inspirations or approaches diverge then I want to feel energized, not threatened, by those differences. I want to savor the conversation while it's alive and kicking, not squirm in anticipation of its closure. Closure = dead teaching. Keep many questions alive and many doors open.
When teachers feel demoralized by the onslaught of negative teacher press, pay cuts, stressful working conditions and an increasingly authoritarian education establishment that outsources control of their profession to corporate foundations, I would argue they are far less apt to be self-reflective and collaborative. If we want to redefine our profession then we have our work cut out for us. I believe openness and democratic decision-making from the ground up lead to better teaching, but here we are in a climate of reticence and fear. The sword of Damocles is hanging over us and IB-style risk-taking is frozen in terrified submission to the coming disasters. Those already upon us have left us in shock and disorientation.
This is no universal explanation or excuse for the stunted teachers among us, those who have failed their kids by checking out year after year and going through the motions. I want to point out here that the culture of incessant testing is likely to exacerbate bad teaching, for people on autopilot in any profession tend to gravitate to regimented curriculum. Lazy people like to be told what to do and how to do it, to read from scripts, to ignore the spark of critical questioning wafting up from a corner of the room they would rather yank back to some pro forma task. Give us your marching orders and we won't ask questions! Those are not the people we want teaching our kids, and we are not going to be getting rid of the deadweight unless we battle the testing establishment as passionately as we grapple with our own inertia. Yes, we need to kick each other's butts into high gear, inspire each other and the kids! Only let's forget that what's outside is very relevant to what's on the inside.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/us/01tenure.html?_r=2&hpw
ReplyDeleteRead above for a concise, recent account of the tenure controversy. (Soon I will figure out hyperlinks...I hope.)
In terms of tenure and the supposed difficulty of firing teachers, I would like to compile statistics beyond anecdotal impressions. I'm not merely talking about our district but the country as a whole. I too have heard from one administrator friend in a nearby district that it is hard to fire a bad teacher, so I am not claiming there is no issue. However, if we are going to seriously discuss reforming tenure then we need to know what exactly the law says and decide from there whether administrators are unduly burdened by the due process entailed. I'm not convinced.
Do states without tenure or unions get better learning results (by our current standards)? Do they even fire more people? My understanding is that they don't, but correct me if I am wrong. We also have to remember that many teachers (half?) drop out after the first few years and, effectively, fire themselves. We also can't forget that teacher tenure was originally about protecting teachers from being fired on the basis of race, sex, political beliefs, etc. In fairly recent history in the Bay Area, as one is reminded of in the film "Milk," teachers were fired for being gay. As I mentioned in a previous post, the growing and unfounded link between teacher evaluations and student test scores makes tenure even more critical. At-will employment is arbitrary and workers are left with little recourse if they are fired arbitrarily. Basically, I am loath to surrender what labor movements of the past have bequeathed to us. Public unions are under so much attack because private ones have been mostly crushed, and we need to fight for what rights remain on behalf of all working people. Jobs and professions without due process should be more like us and not the other way around.
We are all Wisconsin!
Simone Harris
Montgomery High School
I think if every faculty at every site had a panel of master teachers (perhaps composed of department heads, but not necessarily) who evaluate their colleagues, as Donna recommends, on a regular basis, who have the authority to insist on additional training for struggling teachers, and then ultimately to recommend their removal after a designated period of time if performance does not improve, then, indeed, tenure laws could be stripped down or removed entirely.
ReplyDeleteProtections from firing based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, political belief, etc. exist broadly for every worker in this country and do not require special tenure laws. Furthermore, what current tenure laws fail to take into account is that teachers can demonstrate all sorts of competence for the first few years until tenure is earned, and then switch on auto-pilot for the rest. There is no motivation--other than a teacher's inherent desire to achieve excellence and/or her love for her students--to reach to the highest possible standards of our profession. This is the fundamental flaw of tenure.
Tenure is far too automatically granted and is based, in our district at least, on having survived in the classroom for two to three years and on there being an open tenure slot. I feel no pride in having been awarded tenure. It does not mean anything and has no bearing on who I am as a teacher. If tenure were more like being named a partner in a law firm, or if it were even just more like earning tenure at a university, where at least it is based on publishing significant work in one's discipline, then I would push more for its safekeeping. As it is, tenure is a meaningless anachronism.
I suspect that the fight against tenure is also somewhat grounded in the fact that older teachers are more expensive. Administrators with a more corporate mentality might do simple calculations such as the fact that they can get two rookies for the price of one veteran, and if the results are similar, then why not? This is the only part that I fear about losing tenure. But frankly, perhaps the problem here is not tenure but the graduated salary schedule. If we were paid based on competence rather than experience, on results rather than time served, then a veteran teacher has nothing to fear if he continues to deliver the goods.
To return to the "master teacher panel" notion I floated at the beginning of this post, I would say that the function of such a panel would not merely be to identify, retrain, and, as a last resort recommend the removal of struggling teachers, but also to defend highly effective teachers from harassment and arbitrary firing. This is what our union should have been doing all along, but I think it is more appropriate at a site level.
C Schloemp
Montgomery High School
If you want an eye-opener, go check out the standards for National Board Certification in your teaching discipline. Achieving this would certainly be a meaningful accomplishment, much more so than earning tenure.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nbpts.org/
I think I have an idea what my next year's EPIC project will be. If some of us can do this as a cohort, we can not only support each other, but distribute some of the preparation costs.
As far as I know, we only have one National Board Certified teacher at Montgomery: John Quintrell. Not surprisingly, John is also the guiding force behind the "Teach Like a Champion" group.
We all like to claim we are excellent teachers. Who is willing to prove it? If you want to start this process with me, let's have a lunch meeting in Room 81 sometime soon. If you are at another site besides Montgomery High, let's go get a frosty beverage somewhere and talk about this.
You know where to find me.
C Schloemp
Montgomery High
I do not want to see permanent status go away. I just want to see a more reasonable approach to firing bad teachers. But I will also state that I don't feel there are very many who fall into that category. We all have certain strengths and weaknesses; we may not all be superheroes, but most of us truly strive to do a good job and challenge ourselves to keep improving in responding to our students' needs. I don't think there are huge numbers of teachers who would fall into the "should be fired" category even if firing them were made easier.
ReplyDeleteDonna
MHS
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJust one quick fact check on discrimination: only 21 states have laws that protect workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation. (http://www.takepart.com/news/2011/02/25/dont-ask-dont-tell-is-alive-and-well-for-gay-educators) and this makes gay teachers a very vulnerable group in many parts of the country. Even in states with explicit protections, we have to remember that legislation changes with the political times. Stripping away tenure can leave any marginalized group or opinion more exposed, and this becomes increasingly dangerous in reactionary times. It's a great idea to assign a Master Teacher Panel to defend teachers against harassment or discrimination, but they can't bear full responsibility for that task; no group, regardless of its teaching caliber, can be entrusted with individual rights which must be sealed in the law.
ReplyDeleteContinued from above: And if not sealed explicitly in one law, then bolstered by another.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the article link. I had no idea that over half the nation still lacks employment protections for sexual orientation and gender identity. Frankly, that's barbaric. Ironically, Wisconsin, which is currently ground zero for the union battle, was the first to adopt such a law. Go figure. Thankfully, California has one now. I regret the comment I made earlier, which was based on faulty information. I suppose the naive me simply assumed that because we have it here, we have it everywhere.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, those protections need to be enshrined, as Simone says, in law. Specifically, they should be enshrined in federal employment law. Tenure for educators is not the place for such a law. Are there marginalized groups in society? Certainly. This is an undeniable and sad fact. However, those groups work in every profession. Why are teachers singled out for the extra protection of tenure? This goes to the very heart of public resentment of us.
How is there any kind of justice in keeping a grizzled veteran who treads water every day, while giving the passionate, energetic newcomer a pink slip? This is the very definition of absurdity. We need to reform education with the best and the brightest, not the ones who merely show up every day.
"They can't touch me" can be said with a sigh of relief that persecution has no power over us. "They can't touch me" can also be said with the sly grin of someone who has gotten away with something. I hear both. Tenure protects both impartially.
It breaks my heart when I think about who is going to get a notice. It breaks my heart when I think about who is not.
Chris, your new Epic Project idea sounds exciting!
ReplyDeleteI think you are right that more experienced, and thus expensive, teachers are targets of the movement to abolish tenure. I'm not saying that experience automatically leads to excellence, but I don't know if I would dismiss a connection either. It seems to me to be one very important factor in determining competence in any field. So does a quality education. I realize not all teacher programs and Master's degrees are equally challenging and fulfilling, but I rather appreciated mine.
I don't mean to suggest this is your position, but I hear a lot these days that new recruits who enter this field with no background in either subject matter or education are somehow preferable as administrators or teachers, as long as they get "results." Why? They often have some corporate sponsorship and have imbibed ideology that does not threaten corporate interests.
I'm not saying there aren't fantastic teachers who are fantastic for reasons other than academic preparation or experience, but we can't take the latter two out of the equation. Imagine if we evaluated doctors that way. I don't want a doctor who has had only two years of experience just because his/her patients who were treated for high blood pressure are doing well at the end of those two years. Would anyone expect that doctor to be held accountable for a patient's diet, home environment, or genetic history, all things that can contribute to high blood pressure? What about the poverty that afflicts millions in this society and that may have contributed to poor eating habits, or the domestic and drug abuse that took place in some of those patients' homes, raising their stress level and blood pressure?
I'm not saying it's a perfect analogy or that we teachers shouldn't proceed from the premise that we can transcend all sorts of barriers to giving our students a quality education. We have to push ourselves every day, keep our energy, faith and love high. But we are a profession, tenure or no tenure, that is judged according to a standard I don't see for very many others. None of us can control the many factors that go into a quality education. Nobody, no matter how brilliant and talented at this job, is God or Superman, but sometimes it's almost as if we are expected to be. And the irony is that any sustained excellence must arise from the constant humility of this recognition.
My teacher program and graduate work helped set the tone for the continual reflection and refinement that is good teaching. Beyond everything else, I remember that habit of mind being encouraged and it is one of my greatest tools. I learned a lot in those years. I had a fantastic professor who inspired me, became a mentor and even colleague for a time, and is now my cherished comrade in this field. I had the opportunity to do graduate work in my subject matter as well as in education. Excelling in challenging academic settings, doing a pre-practicum and practicum with multiple classroom visits, evaluations, written reflections, and oral presentations, all this culminating in a lengthy portfolio compiling work over a two year period, should COUNT toward competence even if it isn't the sine qua non, which it most decidedly isn't.
Continued from above: There are so many different kinds of good or excellent teachers who bring a variety of wonderful qualities to the profession, some intellectual, others emotional, moral, aesthetic or and/or spiritual. Results are important, but we need to expand that concept to include multiple measurements because frequently, the numbers that incite a competition between a potentially collaborative community amount to a dunghill of meaningless data with little statistical validity.
ReplyDeleteChris, you introduced me to Sir Ken Robinson. He points out that not everything important in education cannot be measured with data. Check out p. 22 of this link: http://filmenglish.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/transcript-sir-ken-robinson.pdf
"At the heart of every scientific process is not the data, it is the judgement you make about it." On the same page he says three things that make a good teacher: knowing your subject matter, pedagogical skill, and love. The Teach Like a Champion techniques sound incredibly useful in honing skill! But nothing generates love but...love. It's the spark inside that is daily lit by colleagues, students, loved ones, community, moral and political convictions, aesthetic and intellectual passions, etc.
I am pretty self-effacing about my teaching. I have days I think I've done a crappy job and I feel them in my gut. I feel the daily and weekly stings of missed opportunities and moments, ill-timed remarks, neglected intuition, careless choices that I wish I could rewind. On other days I know I'm on fire, and it is not me, per se, but a oneness with what I'm doing, a joy that is coursing through me, the students, and the room. Why I am blessed with those days is not utterly baffling or irrelevant to my preparation, intelligence, or skill set, but it is mysterious and sacred in the best sense. I shudder to reduce everything beautiful in life or learning to great recipes or measurable outcomes. It just doesn't work like that.
I would never claim the IDENTITY of excellence. Excellence is in doing, not being. But one thing I will say is that I love to be in the classroom, I love the kids, and I love the literature we read together. I guess I'm an intrinsically motivated fool, but I really don't think it's carrots or sticks that are sustaining me on this journey, and I don't believe I am special in that regard. I think there are millions of brave and beautiful teachers who are lit from within by a spark that tenure, or its supposed complacency stemming from too much security (not so much in evidence these days), can't extinguish.
It's not the threat of losing my job that keeps me motivated, and I'm pretty sure that the chronic fear and insecurity of the average work place in America isn't a fount of creativity, critical thinking or joy. I want for teachers what I want for my students: nurturance, joy, acceptance, challenge, creative stimulation, passion and love. And I want freedom from the behaviorist veil that hangs over our humanity. It's not about controlling behavior or performance or what we see on the outside, so much as it is about honoring what is on the inside and helping it grow. There many paths to that goal.
Simone H Montgomery
Love it, Simone!
ReplyDeleteWe are actually a great deal more similar than you realize, Simone. You are most definitely not the kind of teacher I have been criticizing. The whole notion of being self-effacing as a teacher is exactly how I see myself, too. (I even wrote a poem for this year's EPIC project, called "Self-Effacing," so I hear you on that score.) I am constantly riddled with self-doubt, but it's a healthy kind of self-doubt in that it spurs me onwards to get it right next time. It sounds like you do the same. I believe that is at the heart of what makes our profession a true vocation, a calling, the desire to always be finding a better path, to reach more kids, more often.
ReplyDeleteThis is why I am working on my skill set this year. This is why I think I want to try for National Board Certification next year (and I still hope other wants to join me, since that will be a lonely road to go alone).
Your students are so lucky to have you. Thanks for keeping the fire lit for us.
Thank you, Donna. Meanwhile, I am fixated on my double negative typo in the second comment and longing to edit the last line of the first to "sine qua non or guarantor of it." Is this a good time to mention that, much like in the case of Facebook, we have no edit button on comments?
ReplyDeleteThank you both for challenging me to refine my thoughts on tenure. It's a tough issue. I agree with Chris that teachers don't deserve tenure more than the rest of the work force. For me it comes down to wishing the rest of the work force would fight for the same level of job security. I'm not big on cutthroat competition as a motivator, but on the other hand we can probably all agree that where there is mediocrity in any profession, we need to do all we can to stamp it out. We may just differ on how to dispose of it in self and others, but dispose of it we must. Young people are precious and we should not entrust them to people who are going through the motions, nor should we excuse ourselves for going through the motions. Life is too short.
On an earlier point, there are so many rights I'd like to see enshrined in and enforced by the law, not least of which is right to a living wage. Tenure would be irrelevant if we could ensure these rights, but then it emerged from the struggle to do just that. The labor movement, such as it is, needs to draw connections across all jobs so we can stand united. Divided, we fall.
Back atcha, Chris! I respect and admire you and this kind of conversation is so inspiring to me. How are we going to get others to join in? We may have to go on strike until someone else posts. Chris and Donna, you in? Walkout!
ReplyDeleteSolidarity! Come on, all you blogstalkers! Saddle up to the bar.
ReplyDeleteIs there any way to get a hold of the actual guidelines for dealing with underperforming teachers so that we could try a redraft? Maybe if we came up with better language -- language that takes into account what we truly expect of one another (which is not perfection, but self-reflection and a desire and effort to continue to grow and respond to student needs), we could actually present a redrafting of the guidelines. Wouldn't that be radical? Hey, CTA, here are the changes we propose to the tenure guidelines!
ReplyDeleteI gotta add, though, that this is only one problem facing our profession right now. I think we need some more discussion under "Fighting for our schools." Yes, it would be good if we addressed this valid concern. But this alone is not enough to change the current climate. It's only one piece of the puzzle.
ReplyDelete...and Chris, I can't even imagine finding the time for a national certification. It's a massive undertaking! My job is already about 85% of my life. Do you really think the label is worth the effort? I mean -- it's not just another title?
Donna
MHS
I've definitely thought about that, Donna. But it is a title that is actually meaningful, because it is not automatic.
ReplyDeleteI really want to help move our profession more into the realm of "professional" rather than working class. Lawyers have to pass the bar exam. Doctors have to be board certified. If we want the respect, I think we have to show that we are willing to step up and earn it. I don't know. I'm not a very political person. I don't make picket signs. I am good at school. The NBCT certification is something I feel I can do for the profession, and for my own sense of pride. I have no doubt I will become a better teacher as a result, so the kids win, too.
I'm all for amassing more knowledge and credentials. If I could study in a university setting for half the year and teach the other half, I would be in heaven. Rock on with your bad NBCT certification, Chris! My only caveat to any "let's get more professional boosterism" is that I believe many of us are already extremely qualified in our fields and have done considerable academic work to get to this point, never mind the work we do every day on the ground in our classrooms. I don't want to contribute to a public misconception that teachers are mentally lazy or intellectually unimpressive. Some are, sure! But if half of all new teachers flee the trenches in five years, doesn't that say something for those of us who stay? It's not exactly like tenure dropped from the sky one day while I was pleasantly daydreaming on a warm summer afternoon. This job is HARD if done right, and I know some brilliant, intellectual types who wouldn't last one minute in a classroom. It's not easy to discuss "Waiting for Godot" with a heater loudly sputtering in the background. I say to disapproving members of the public: Try explaining that existence precedes essence in one breath and with the next lecturing students on why it's not okay to say "existentialism is so gay." The social, cognitive and moral dance has a complicated rhythm, and it ain't easy to do with mouse excrement piling up in the corners. That brings me to my next post...
ReplyDeleteI am torn on this issue. Obviously, we want to always improve our craft, but I also fear the perception that we are not well enough qualified as we are. Our training is already extensive, and those of us who are motivated are always making efforts to improve. I'm not sure that national certification is going to give us anything we are not already doing and I am not convinced that it will change public perception. If I thought it would, I'd be in with both feet in a heartbeat.
ReplyDeleteSorry about the split infinitive in that last post. :/
ReplyDeleteI can see I am going to have to start proofreading my posts a little more carefully.
This editorial is a worthy read. Of course, we all already know this, but it's nice to hear someone in the national press acknowledging it -- especially since David Brooks is generally very conservative.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/opinion/08brooks.html?src=me&ref=general
In my mind, "accountability" and "standardized testing" should not even be part of the same debate. How do we get the public to understand this?
Donna, I bet nationally certified teachers never split their infinitives.
ReplyDeletekidding, of course. I'll get a testing thread up soon for this article. Read it. Interesting. Not on topic, but his line about our government being "unprepared for the psychological aftershocks of Saddam's terror" bugs me. What about the aftershocks of 'Shock and Awe'? Were we equally unprepared to find that bombing and killing isn't a smooth path to democracy?
Anyway, it's an interesting piece. I think that grades, high stakes tests, and incessant measurements do as great a disservice to reason as to emotion, but maybe that goes back to the two being inextricable.
I hate the phrase "human capital."