An Opinion on Teacher Tenure

On Tuesday, a court in California ruled that teacher tenure was unconstitutional. There were previous rulings in California related to the funding of schools. School districts in poor communities had to be funded at the same levels as rich districts. Since poor school districts were more likely to have poor performing tenured teachers that could not be fired, this resulted in a poorer quality education for students in lower income areas, just like the result of unequal funding.

This morning the Billings Gazette asked "Will California's tenure ruling mean anything in Montana?" There are no lawsuits in Montana related to this, nor will Governor Bullock allow changes to tenure to occur over the next two years.

Some quotes from the article: President of the BEA...

While some might criticize the system for creating an environment where it’s impossible to remove bad teachers, McCulloch said that the claim is simply not true. In Montana, he said, teachers have to go through a three-year probationary period before they are “awarded” tenure, during which time they are evaluated twice a year. The evaluations are based on things like a teacher’s understanding of students, of the curriculum and their pedagogy. If a teacher is ineffective, there is a process for removing him or her, he said.

On the Gazette facebook page...Christian Bourn described the removal process...

Here's the process for canning a tenured teacher:

1. A contract is renewed in the spring with the understanding that the teacher will be placed on a professional plan of improvement for the next year. 

2. The teacher is then observed over the next year and continually given evaluations. They're given the opportunity to contest poor evaluations with a union representative present. They're given the opportunity to schedule meetings with the administration and the union when they feel they need to.

3. After their final evaluation of the year, they're told whether or not they'll be recommended for rehire. Now, they have the further ability to contest this. But, at this point, an administrator has enough information to can them so the teacher will opt for retirement or resignation.

4. Here is something else to bear in mind; most unions don't cover legal fees. The reps are their to make sure you're getting proper legal advice and to stand with you if you're being railroaded. Generally speaking, the union reps in Montana will not go to bat for you if you're a f- up teacher. I'm a part of the teachers union and I've been involved in several mediation sessions. Every time, the union has told the teacher on the hot seat to follow the administrator's instructions. We have not told them to "fight the man" or go to court. 

Also Eric Olsen was quoted to provide the other side...

When it comes to the budget, if they can get two inexperienced teachers for the price of one experienced teacher, Olsen said they should do it. “That’s just part of the system. You see that in the corporate world,” he said, adding that he didn’t think it’d bother kids too much. “Kids are real flexible. They’re probably the most flexible creatures on earth.”

This comment was not helpful for the reform side. After parents, the most important factor in a successful education is a quality teacher. Mr. Olsen's plan works against that. In general, most of our community are willing to pay excellent teachers a good salary to keep them in the system. But the current steps and lanes/tenure system pays all teachers the same regardless of each teachers performance. Reforms should be made towards a merit system, rather than how cheap we can be in paying teachers.

The first question that came my mind was how many SD2 teachers been let go strictly because of bad performance in the classroom over the past five years? That question was posted on the board email page by myself. I am not sure if the administration will answer the question, but it is a question that should be asked and answered. I would like to know how serious the school district is when they determine that a teacher is not doing their job. If the administration hasn't done anything about bad teachers, then the trustees have to turn that around. 

Now let's step into the shoes of parents. I am a parent with children in the public schools, so I know what this is like. When our children our assigned teachers (we generally do not request individual teachers), I do not know if I am getting a high performing teacher or a teacher that needs to be let go. That information is hidden from parents. And if a parent realizes that their child is not learning as much as they should, how would that parent know if it is an issue with a child's effort or if it is an issue with a bad teacher. How would a parent know when teacher evaluations are hidden from the parent? What if the issue is the curriculum or a school policy negatively affecting education? It is not fun being a parent sending children to this system. 

In a lot of ways, public schools are monopolies where some parents have no choice to send their children to public schools. The trustees has to hold the administration accountable for the service they provide. Administrators have to hold employees accountable for the job they were hired to do. I can live with some due process, but maybe parents should know that they are getting a teacher that is on a plan of improvement. Maybe parents should be notified that they had a child in a classroom where a teacher wasn't doing their job and be offered free tutoring to make up lost education. 

All I know that the discussion of this topic rarely involves what parents think. I do not care about the battles between the tea party and unions. How about putting students first for a change?

Virgil