In class and on blog posts that I have been reading, a lot of people have been discussing the issue of teacher tenure. This is something I am very interested in, I even did a research project on the topic a few years ago. Needless to say, I think it is a flaw that maybe needs some readjusting in our education system.
Like Dr. Glassman said, it doesn't take very long for a teacher to earn tenure, which can ultimately be very damaging. Although we all know it is not about the pay, it can in fact ruin the motivation for new teachers or teachers who are not truly passionate about students. If they are already receiving a greater amount of money, for some this will cause them to slack off because they have reached their "highest promotion;" there is nothing for them to work towards. Also, two years is certainly not long enough for a teacher to be well established in their classroom environment and teacher styles. So how are we supposed to be able to judge whether or not they are a good teacher and are deserving of this raise and job contract? What this can do is support teachers who are not doing their job well enough and make them able to keep their job when they are most certainly undeserving of it because of legal ties and such.
Now, I am not saying that teachers do not need to be protected. Teachers do need some kind of support system that will ensure their jobs, especially those who are great at what they do. Of course, great teachers also deserve a raise as compensation for the wonderful work they are doing in the classroom. It also may encourage teachers to stay in the profession even when times are hard because they are working towards a protection and reward for their hard work.
So this raises the question: how do we decide which teachers are deserving of tenure and should we decide this at all?
In my opinion, I think it would be very beneficial to have some kind of collective evaluation process, one that is not based solely on test scores or student performance as it is now. While I do think that student performance can sometimes have to do with the teacher, often times it does not and basing our teacher's tenure and jobs solely on this and how long they've been with a school is not helpful. Teachers should be judged based off of many things: they should be observed, the students should have the opportunity to evaluate their teachers (and have it actually mean something), other teachers should be able to evaluate a teacher, and so on and so forth along with their student's performance and their seniority. We all have seen many teachers that do not belong in a classroom yet cannot be fired because of their position, seniority, or otherwise importance to the school (an important softball coach as well, been there for 15 years, head of the science department, etc.).
All in all, there are many things we should take into account when deciding whether or not tenure is a good option for our teachers. To further my argument, here is a website that lists the pros and cons of tenure: http://teachertenure.procon.org/
I really like your ideas on how tenure should be awarded. Tenure is not inherently bad, but as you and Dr. Glassman point out, it is something that teachers receive early in their careers and in tern, they are wrongfully protected. However, I think that tenure can be and should be a reward for good teachers. I like that you suggest peer and student evaluations instead of relying on testing. These evaluations would more likely acknowledge all the variables that educators experience in the classroom.
ReplyDelete