A hot topic of discussion in the news, political coliseum, and faculty rooms across the country is the concept of tenure. The term is often misunderstood by politicians, parents, and interest groups. Many think it is a way to protect incompetent educators. However, it is fair a system of hiring and firing.
In an article entitled “Now Is The Time To Redefine Teacher Tenure” by Gary M. Chesley, tenure is stripped down and reformatted. Chesley first discusses the history of tenure up to present and how it has protected teachers from the malicious intent of school boards, administrators, and politicians. He mentions several changes that might help to clarify and improve the idea of tenure. These changes include having the teacher do the following: execute three units of instruction over three years of employment; write three unit assessments; develop and execute an annual student management plan; receive a minimum of three classroom evaluations; achieve student academic growth in specific skills;,and keep documented contributions that not only help themselves, but the school. After these requirements have been met, a tenure panel would review the information and decide whether or not to grant the teacher tenure. This would not only help teachers, but principals and could help often demonized unions (Chelsey, Gary 44-35).
I agree with the author. Tenure should be reformatted. However, I feel that additional improvements could be considered. Previously in class, we discussed how teachers should be paid. Tenure should include a possible appraisal or denial of monetary gain. If the teacher meets a percentage of the requirements set forth, then his/her annual pay can increase. That pay would, of course, be based on a configured pay scale.
However, I also believe that probation and protection should be reconfigured. Currently, there is a probationary period of three years and a day before a teacher is granted tenure. This can also be adjusted. Midway through the third year of the probationary period, the teacher should be evaluated by the appropriate administrator. Then, a meeting should take place. At this meeting, the evaluator should present the teacher with a specific improvement plan. If the teacher meets the requirements of that plan, he or she will receive tenure.
However, if the teacher does not meet the requirements, they will remain at the same pay level for the following year and not be automatically granted tenure in the fourth year. Midway through the fourth year, the evaluation process can be repeated. If the teacher still has not met the requirements set forth by the district, he/she will then be terminated and encouraged to seek a teaching position elsewhere.
I disagree with the idea of reformatting tenure. I feel as though the entire process, as well as all of the new provisions, will only make matters worse. In this regard, I believe there would be numerous amounts of complaints, lawsuits, etc. regarding the new policies. In my personal opinion, I strongly feel that the current time period (3 years and 1 day) is more than enough time for a school to make a decision on whether or not they want to grant that teacher tenure. Throughout that three year period, the school, administrators, board members, etc. have ample opportunities to observe, assess, and evaluate the teacher. Therefore, if they feel that the teacher does not meet the requirements of tenure, they should release that teacher right away as opposed to postponing it. To me, this is the only method that makes sense and reduces possible conflicts. The reformatting of both tenure and how teachers get paid, mentioned in the blog, seems as though there is no distinct line drawn, which could lead to favoritism, being bias, etc., which could also, in turn, lead to many more problems within school districts. In the end, I feel that tenure should remain the same. If schools, administrators, board members, etc. would efficiently and effectively evaluate the teachers before granting tenure then there should be no “incompetent” teachers that have been granted tenure.
ReplyDelete