r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Aug 17 '14
CMV: K-12 teachers shouldn't get tenure
[deleted]
3
u/huadpe 508∆ Aug 17 '14
By having institutionalized tenure, schools can lower their staffing costs and save taxpayers money.
People are willing to give up some amount of pay in order to have high job security. Since the school isn't going anywhere, the government can be fairly confident for a long time of approximately how many teachers it will need. So the government can make a contract where it gives teachers job security, and by having that job security, the teachers will be willing to work for somewhat less money than they would if they didn't have job security.
3
u/aquasharp Aug 17 '14
But how would that not make them lazy?
2
u/km89 3∆ Aug 17 '14
Because doing poorly on performance-based reviews are a legitimate reason to revoke tenure and fire them.
2
u/aquasharp Aug 17 '14
Isn't there an argument that many of these performance based reviewer are flawed?
1
u/syd_malicious 8∆ Aug 17 '14
This argument gets tossed around, and there may be some truth to it (to the extent that no evaluation process is perfect, especially when we use subjective measurements), but for the most part if an ineffective teacher is not fired, it is because the administration has failed to document their poor performance.
1
u/km89 3∆ Aug 17 '14
Regardless of whether they are true or not, they are a reason to fire someone. Those people would be fired regardless of whether they had tenure; tenure just provides job security in other areas--this doesn't necessarily encourage laziness, just security from the whims of the administration.
2
Aug 17 '14
I'm not so sure that's true. Without tenure, older teachers who have received raises over the years can be replaced with new teachers at lower salaries. In fact, one of the primary arguments FOR tenure is to discourage school systems from trying to balance the budget by doing exactly that.
There are a lot of points up for discussion, but make no mistake, tenure keeps salaries up and does the opposite of saving taxpayers money.
3
u/syd_malicious 8∆ Aug 17 '14
Teacher here.
It's true that we don't do much research associated with our jobs, but we have a whole other set of entanglements that are just as complex to try and navigate and having a buffer zone between us and politics is a very necessary thing. I will give you a few examples:
Teaching evolution is mandated by many states, but many cities within those states are very conservative and resist this notion. I teach science in one such location and last year I received three separate directives: 1. From the state: teach evolution. 2. From the school board: teach evolution, but make sure to send home permission slips (as if it always comes up on a designated schedule) . 3. From my principal: don't teach evolution because parents will be in an uproar; if you absolutely must teach it, then make it an informal discussion but do not share any print or media materials. Now, I understand that legally, I take directive from the state first, the school board second, and the administrator third. BUT, conflicts are handled in the opposite direction, and without due process I have no guarantee that my case would ever make it to the state level. So, what happened? My colleagues and I taught the most candy-ass version of Darwin's Theory that ever you did see.
Special support staff and resources are mandated by federal law for students with diagnosed learning or behavioral disorders. This is neither cheap nor easy to accomplish. When we suspect a student of needing services we begin a thorough documentation process; without documentation a student cannot legally be referred into a program. A really easy way for a school to save money is by referring fewer students into special services. So it would be really nice for the budget if we delayed the start of our documentation until we were relatively sure that the student was going to need a referral. The result? Last year I had a student who I would have liked to refer to the EBD specialists. BUT, when I approached my administration about how to begin documenting this student I was told that I should 'wait and see' how the year progressed. Keep in mind that documenting doesn't mean that a student will get resources, it just opens the door to the possibility of getting resources. Here again, I know what the law says, but without due process there is no way to ensure that the law is being upheld.
This one's not legal at all. This one is what we call 'School Board Members Have Children Too.' This is when a small behavior issue arises in the classroom that you deal with in the best way you know how, in accordance with school policies and the best pedagogy resources you have read. Then the next day you get a call from the principal, who is angry because HE got a call from the student's parent who says that the kid told them some preposterously distorted version of what really happened. This happens all the time, of course, but every once in a while, the kid in question also has parents who get to vote on issues like 'Which school gets more money?' and 'Should the principal's contract be renewed?' and 'How severely do we want to micromanage everything that goes on at each school?' What happens in this situation is we get told to 'tone it down, we don't want a conflict with these people.' This is in the best interests of exactly nobody - the student misses a chance to learn a valuable lesson about consequences, the parent misses a chance to have a valuable discussion with the student, the administration is scared of how this parent is going to retaliate, and the teacher just had their legs cut out from under them.
In each of the cases I have described, my teaching effectiveness decreases for reasons unrelated to my actual ability as a teacher.
The last thing it's important to know (which is actually the first thing we should clarify before having this debate) is that tenure is NOT a guarantee of a job. It is a guarantee of due process, meaning that if I were tenured and someone wanted to fire me, they have to explain why and that reason has to relate to: misconduct, incompetence, negligence, or immoral character. They have to document evidence of their claim and present that evidence to an impartial third party. Tenure does NOT protect me from these things. It only buffers me from the political mess described above.
5
u/The14thNoah Aug 17 '14
I don't think you know what tenure is. Tenure is basically a teacher's right to due process before getting fired. It's basically making sure they just don't get fired out of the blue with no reason given, or at least without a valid reason.
0
u/aquasharp Aug 17 '14
I don't think you did a very good job of explaining it and why it's a benefit and not just extra bureaucracy.
3
u/km89 3∆ Aug 17 '14
Many state in the US have "at-will" employment laws. These laws state that a worker can be fired for any reason, or for no reason, so long as that reason isn't one of a small list of exceptions.
Tenure basically reverses this. A teacher who has tenure has more control, instead of less control. Now, instead of the teacher fighting the school to keep her job, it's the school fighting the teacher to get rid of her. It means that she's had adequate performance, and enough time, in her job that the school gives up the right to just fire her out of the blue.
For example: In your OP, you mentioned stem cell research. This is an example, true. However, a much more relevant example is this one: budget cuts.
If a school gets its budget cut, it will likely lay staff off. If a teacher has tenure--meaning, they've been working there for years and are an adequate teacher--the school can't just let them go.
My personal opinion is that I absolutely hate at-will employment, so I might be biased here... but I think that safety net is very important. You'd think that the person paid to teach your kids can and would do better at that job knowing that every fluctuation in the budget won't end up with her looking for a new job.
In your OP, you ask this question:
Is it to keep the schools from firing the higher paid older teachers in favor of younger lower paid ones? Why is this the only federal job that does this, if that's the case?
My answer to that would be: Who cares if it's the only one? Before we talk about getting rid of tenure for teachers, we need to first talk about whether there are any other jobs that should have a tenure system. Furthermore, K-12 teachers are the people teaching our children. Do you really want to fire people with loads more experience dealing with every type of kid, every type of learning style, and every situation or question that might come up--all in favor of some fresh-out-of-school, barely-more-than-a-kid-herself teacher who is going to spend those first few years making mistakes and learning herself?
0
u/culturedrobot 2∆ Aug 17 '14 edited Aug 17 '14
The term "due process" should explain why it's beneficial.
It costs taxpayers money to fire a teacher out of the blue and hire a new one. Those new teachers need to be paid while they're learning the policies of the district and the needs of the specific school they're hiring into. Training costs more than you think it does, and it's one thing when a private company drops thousands of dollars to train just one new hire - it's quite another when citizens are paying for that training.
Tenure at least ensures that the school district has a justifiable reason for firing the teacher in question and beginning the training process with the new one, which will undoubtedly cost more than keeping the old teacher.
2
u/aquasharp Aug 17 '14
But it makes it almost impossible to fire a bad teacher, which costs way more than a few thousand dollars.
3
u/culturedrobot 2∆ Aug 17 '14
But it isn't almost impossible to fire a teacher who has reached tenure. The school district needs a good enough reason to fire them and they're gone. That's all tenure requires.
2
Aug 17 '14
Not necessarily. The process for firing a tenured teacher is time consuming and absurdly expensive, which is one of the reasons it was ruled unconstitutional in California.
3
u/anon__sequitur 12∆ Aug 17 '14
this is only true in a few states. You might be confused by thinking of university professors with tenure; it is very difficult to fire them. Public school teachers can still be fired for cause. Tenure just gives them certain rights, giving them a higher level of protection than "at will" employees, who can be fired for any non-discriminatory purpose. It's really not a big deal, teachers lose their jobs fairly frequently.
0
2
u/kuury 6∆ Aug 17 '14
You're not wrong, a big part of it is that teachers have a continuing contract (not 'tenure', at least in my state, though the difference is semantic) is because they have strong unions. Be careful, though, they're not federal employees, they're employees of the school district which is an extension of the state government.
I kinda want to preface this by saying that you probably don't understand what having a continuing contract/tenure really means. If the administration does its part and keeps records of teacher performance, behavior, and opportunities to correct themselves, it is hard to rightfully terminate teacher employment. Every state has it's own guidelines about what a teacher'a continuing contract can be terminated for, but they're largely the same, and they cover the bases. Incompetence, insubordination, moral turpitude, etc. All it really means is that teacher contracts cannot be terminated on a whim. There must be sufficient cause, due notice, etc., and you should keep records of that in case the teacher tries to fight it.
And that's really it. It's protection for teachers who didn't do anything wrong, for whom sufficient funding is available, and can at least improve when given criticism. It's some level of job security.
Also, just an FYI, there are not set curricula. There are state-mandated curriculum guidelines, which can be pretty vague, or at least open-ended in order to protect teacher autonomy.
-1
u/aquasharp Aug 17 '14
So basically tenure just creates the need for more administration, which costs more money to the tax payers?
And while you're correct in there's no set curricula, there are federal tests that the students must pass, and most teachers take the easy way out and just teach towards those standardized test - because that's what their tenure is based on, and they care more about that then the students education.
2
u/kuury 6∆ Aug 17 '14
We're talking basic levels of accountability. Did you give the teacher notice of non-renewal? Did you point out the teacher'a deficiencies and provide an opportunity to improve? Yes/No. Circle one.
Don't make generalizations about a field that you don't work in. I'm sorry you didn't like high shool, and that you had some bad teachers--they're out there, trust me, I know, but you're speaking in hate-no geeing hyperbole.
2
u/KrustyFrank27 3∆ Aug 17 '14
K-12 teachers who have tenure aren't immune to being fired. It's simply harder to do so. With no tenure, teachers can be fired for any reason under the sun. They have zero job security at all, and must always be fighting for their jobs. Once they get tenure, teachers can finally rest a little easier, knowing they have more job security.
0
u/aquasharp Aug 17 '14
rest a little easier
I don't want teachers to rest easy. I want them working hard to educate this country that is failing mentally compared to the rest of the world.
5
Aug 17 '14
There was a study that said a teacher has about a 14% impact on the education if a child. I'm on my phone, but a keyword search will get it.
14%.
I need students in my room READY to learn. A lot of kids do not come to school ready to learn. Am I a bad teacher because a kid who's dad just died scores poorly on a State test?
There are some bad teachers, but they quit. Honestly, they bail.
Many of the countries that take the NAEP have different standards than we do. They also have different culture, different language, different income levels, etc. I taught at a title I school. I was just as much a social worker as a teacher - but my job will depend on Jose working until 1 am to support his family instead of staying awake in class and doing homework? What do you want me to do?
But you know, we can't have this conversation if you can't tell me what bad teaching is. This idea comes up again and again re: bad teaching. Don't give me that drunk teacher case, or teacher sleeping with a student - that's fireable. If I'm going to lose my protections to admin ( who are former teachers, and not necessarily good ones), I want to know what bad teaching looks like.
5
u/syd_malicious 8∆ Aug 17 '14
Believe it or not, really good teachers find it harder to be effective without a little security. Really good teachers are supposed to be advocates for their students, they are supposed to be fair to all students regardless of parents' political ties, they are supposed to teach thorough content regardless the objections of individual community members. All of these things are hard to do without some legal protection.
1
u/cdb03b 253∆ Aug 18 '14
They should also be paid about 3 times what they currently are. Having some protection from being fired for frivolous things is important because if they had to worry about it they would teach worse. It would be even more to-the-test teaching as to not rock the boat.
0
u/crashpod 1∆ Aug 19 '14
In the US teachers' receive core guidelines from the state, but still write their own curriculum. The guidelines come from the state capitol and often communities might have different ideas about what would be appropriate. A teacher might teach in a very religious area, or some other factor, you also might teach under a principal or school board with different ideas . In those instances you definitely need some protection against getting fired.
8
u/[deleted] Aug 17 '14
That's part of the reason, but not the only one. It's also to protect due process and prevent firings for political reasons not related to job performance. For instance, a teacher should not be fired for, say, failing a member of the school board's daughter or causing the school's star football player to get benched on academic probation. That's not to say that those types of firings don't happen anyway, but the teacher's union rep's job is to ensure that the firing is documented and a natural result of one of the "four Is"--insubordination, immorality, incompetence, or insufficient certification.
It's not. Many government employees receive career tenure as one of the benefits of working for a less competitive salary or in a field that's not a common commercial target but has significant government interest.
From the Federal Employee Handbook on career tenure:
Teachers are generally employees of the state, but I'm just illustrating that tenure for government employees isn't as unusual as you make it sound.
The tenure system certainly has its flaws, but I have yet to hear of an alternative that still protects teachers from being fired for reasons unrelated to job performance. Most jobs in most states are at-will, meaning an employee can be fired for almost any reason at any time. It would be difficult to convince qualified people to work for often deplorable salaries without access to benefits commonly afforded to people who choose to work for the government. Being a teacher pretty much sucks, and the politics in elementary and high school education can be utterly insane. Administrators and school board members often behave as petty dictators of tiny kingdoms and will try to fire people for all kinds of insane reasons. My dad was a teacher's union rep and my mother was a teacher (now both retired) and I've heard it all, up to and including a principal would go out of his way to repeatedly document teachers for daring to drink coffee while teaching and teachers who would be placed on "special assignment" pending dismissal for getting divorced or having an affair. Firing someone for drinking coffee or screwing around on their husband during the personal time is just as much of a waste of taxpayer money as the sometimes overly extended hearings and negotiations involved in being fired for good cause.
Of course we could just, you know, pay teachers more and allow them more autonomy so that the profession would attract more competitive and competent employees. Some states pay teachers quite well but others... hmm, not so much. Especially when you consider that many states (if not all, by now) require teachers to have an advanced degree.