There is a lot of chatter around the country about this one especially given the recent actions in Florida.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/04/15/1581102_p2/crist-vetoes-florida-teacher-pay.html

This one strikes home for me and I still trying to sort out my opinions on it. I have been a teacher for 11 years and I have not applied for tenure. This is partly due to some not so well thought out philosophical problems with tenure and partly due to not seeing the need at this time. I find myself reconsidering. With all of the financial problems around various districts, the chance of getting laid off (RIFed) seem to be higher. Teachers without tenure are the first to go, regardless of seniority or ability. A teacher in my district with 29 years of experience (nearly ready to retire) was let go the last time lay offs happened. I now have a family and I simply can not risk that.

On the surface, tenure seems to be a way to protect and reward excellent teachers in a system that only rewards seniority and education and may be subject to the whims of political or personal forces. But that only works if only excellent teachers get it. Unfortunately administrations seldom perform the evaluations necessary so tenure is given by default. While tenured teachers can be fired for poor performance, the steps required may be more than an overtaxed or soft administration care to undertake. So the misconception that tenured teachers have a contract for life is born.

Here are some essays about both sides of the argument. Just some food for thought.
http://www.helium.com/debates/143809-should-tenure-for-teachers-be-abolished

The fact that rubber rooms exist is insane.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Professors that are tenured in my experiences are the worst ones. A little job security and they stop giving a damn.

CinciX12 wrote: Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Professors that are tenured in my experiences are the worst ones. A little job security and they stop giving a damn.

I can only speak for secondary education but the vast majority of teachers, both tenured and untenured, that I have encountered have been highly motivated, intelligent, and caring educators. There are some bad apples but they are in the small minority. My current group of colleges are nothing short of outstanding and all of them are tenured. They could be the exception, but I doubt it.

That being said, I do think that a little bit of pressure is a good thing.

Advocates said the legislation would help attract and retain better teachers with pay raises while weeding out the bad ones.

I have had this line of thought for years.

Opponents said the tenure and rectification provisions were unprecedented. They argued the lack of job security and testing that can be skewed by outside factors such as students' home lives would have discouraged good teachers from working in Florida.

Who has a right of having their job secured?
Job security should not be based because of "time in" when perhaps you're a slouch of a teacher.

My job security has always depended on my ability to do a job at a high level. I'd never want it to depend on anything else.

I am against tenure, however I will say that my professors with Tenure are fantastic. Im assuming thats how they got there.

queencitybuckeye wrote: My job security has always depended on my ability to do a job at a high level. I'd never want it to depend on anything else.

I agree 100%

Tenure shouldn't be abolished, but the process for determining tenure should be looked at and possibly changed.

queencitybuckeye wrote: My job security has always depended on my ability to do a job at a high level. I'd never want it to depend on anything else.

How do you determine if a teacher is doing their job to a 'high level'? There is no profit to follow. There are no monthly numbers to meet that I can think. Test scores are a possibility but why take on the tough classes unless there is a substantial reward for the risk? 'Value added' testing helps level the playing field but not you have kids taking test after test after test. After all you would have to test in art class, gym class, and every other class to determine the level of competence of each teacher. Its easy to say 'keep teachers based on quality' but determining that quality is another matter.

The truly bad teachers are usually obvious and they should be fired in a timely fashion, even if they have tenure, by following some simple rules. The rest of the teachers need some reward. Tenure is one possible reward.

It should be up to each respective institution....and then whether to attend said institutions is up to the respective students and families.

cbus4life wrote: Tenure shouldn't be abolished, but the process for determining tenure should be looked at and possibly changed.

In some districts when applying for tenure you are supposed to be evaluated in the classroom 2 time during the year of application and then a committee determines your status. The system seems to have promise but in practice the evaluations are seldom completed so the teacher is granted tenure by default.

National Board Certification for a teacher may be a model that could be followed when applying for tenure. In this case, the teacher is responsible for submitting works and videos of instruction that meet a fairly rigorous set of standards and take a test demonstrating knowledge in the subject area. National Board teacher must also re certify every 10 years or loose the distinction. The up side is that this helps ensure that only high quality teachers receive tenure. The down side is that this requires evaluators which would be difficult for a school district to manage. Alternately the evaluators could be state wide but then that take decisions away from the local school board.

Thoughts anyone?

CinciX12 wrote: Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Professors that are tenured in my experiences are the worst ones. A little job security and they stop giving a damn.

I think the topic may need to be separated into college professors and other levels.

Often professors receive tenure because of the research, publications, presentations, grants, etc. that they have done that bring attention and/or $$$ to a university. It doens't measure how effective they are at teaching a topic.

Secondary, middle school, elementary, etc. depending upon the structure of the school system receive tenure because of more teaching focused activities.

I think it should be up to each school how they want to handle things. People do good work should be rewarded, but there can be a danger in giving someone too job security.

My experience is only with the tenure process at the university level, i'm decidedly unaware how it works in high school or below.

And i agree that the discussion should definitely be separated, as it is entirely different at the university level than at the high school level, i would imagine, different criteria, things to consider, etc.

Al Bundy wrote:

CinciX12 wrote: Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Professors that are tenured in my experiences are the worst ones. A little job security and they stop giving a damn.

I think the topic may need to be separated into college professors and other levels.

Often professors receive tenure because of the research, publications, presentations, grants, etc. that they have done that bring attention and/or $$$ to a university. It doens't measure how effective they are at teaching a topic.

Secondary, middle school, elementary, etc. depending upon the structure of the school system receive tenure because of more teaching focused activities.

I think it should be up to each school how they want to handle things. People do good work should be rewarded, but there can be a danger in giving someone too job security.

Precisely.

Though, teaching is, depending on the institution, a consideration in the tenure process. Just at some it is more important than at others.

But, those other things certainly do take precedence, by and large.

analogkid wrote:

queencitybuckeye wrote: My job security has always depended on my ability to do a job at a high level. I'd never want it to depend on anything else.

How do you determine if a teacher is doing their job to a 'high level'?

I don't see evaluating teachers as being particularly more difficult than a lot of jobs.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

analogkid wrote:

queencitybuckeye wrote: My job security has always depended on my ability to do a job at a high level. I'd never want it to depend on anything else.

How do you determine if a teacher is doing their job to a 'high level'?

I don't see evaluating teachers as being particularly more difficult than a lot of jobs.

What would you look for?

Absolutely should be abolished, some of the teachers out there have no right being in a classroom.

yes it should. if you've ever taken a political science class with dr. ben muego you'll undertsand way.

I always find this subject amusing and lacking of basic intelligence. Virtually all workers everywhere are hired under a probationary status, that is, they can be fired early in the first few weeks or months for no reason at all . After a certain time period, everyone can still be fired but have rights to sue for wrongful termination AND have unemployment compensation.

Teaching is no different, except that the probation period can last a long time until the teacher goes back to school to earn enough credits and with time worked in the district, be awarded tenure, IF the district elects to hire her/him under that right. Now, they can still be let go, but the district will have to defend against a suit for the teacher to get their job back -- and if the district hasn't got a defense, the teacher wins their job back.

And , I always am amused at what the "reasons" are for termination -- being "unpopular" with students /parents or being "ineffective" in the classroom. Much of today's survival for teachers is remaining "popular" no matter if they are effective at teaching while many teahers take heat for being effective and laying on the work while students/parents complain.

Thats why the law is specific for what teachers can be fired for and if you have a lazy administration who don't do their job in effectively evaluating teachers -- FIRE THEM !!

Paladin wrote: I always find this subject amusing and lacking of basic intelligence. Virtually all workers everywhere are hired under a probationary status, that is, they can be fired early in the first few weeks or months for no reason at all . After a certain time period, everyone can still be fired but have rights to sue for wrongful termination AND have unemployment compensation.

Not exactly. Assuming a bona fide employment contract is not in place between employer and employee, and the employee is not a member of a union, the concept of at will employment is the law of the land in 49 states and in some cases in the 50th (Montana). At will employment means that someone can be fired for any reason (or no reason) not specifically banned by federal or state law. It doesn't matter a bit if said employee has been with the company 20 minutes or 20 years.

Employees can take action for wrongful termination without regard to time worked. The term is commonly misunderstood to mean all kinds of things, but wrongful termination is when someone is fired because of a characteristic covered by law (race, religion, sex, etc.). It has nothing to do with being or not being terminated "for cause".