November 13, 2008--Teacher Tenure
I’m getting to an age when, if you asked me what should be our highest national priority, I should probably say fix our healthcare system.
But it shouldn’t be our highest priority. Though it was given short shrift during the recent presidential campaign, I was pleased to see that Barack Obama placed fixing the nation’s ailing schools near the top of his agenda.
Of course he will have to focus on the economic crisis and that will probably leave little time to pay attention to schooling and even less money for education; and though that would be a pity, there is a lot that can be done without a great deal of additional federal money, things we must do, and soon, to make sure our kids get a world class education so they can be prepared to compete in the 21st century economy. Because if we want to build our economy—forgetting fairness for the moment—it is imperative that we do a better job with our children: growing the economy is inexorably tied to improving our public schools.
About a third of America’s students are enrolled in low-performing schools. That’s 15 million kids. And though there is a federal role to play in helping to improve their schools, it is limited. The Feds supply only a very small fraction of the total cost of providing an education since, constitutionally, the control of education is left to the individual states. Even attempts by the federal government to set achievement standards can be ignored as long as school districts opt to not seek certain forms of federal support. Thus much of the resistance to No Child Left Behind.
A president, especially one like Barack Obama, can use the bully pulpit to urge kids to literally pull up their pants and get serious about studying if they want to have a better life. They can set an example, also like Obama. And I am certain he will do a great deal of this. If he names Colin Powell as Secretary of Education, which is rumored, Powell too can provide inspiration by example. There is already evidence that kids, African American boys particularly, in some schools are already telling their teachers that they want to learn more and are willing to work harder so that they can grow up and be like Barack Obama.
But if this aspirational trend continues and expands, will the schools, more specifically will the teachers we have be up to the challenge? Sadly, for the most part, I don’t think so.
There are reasons for this. Many cite low pay. Others the poor quality of teacher training and certification. Some claim that in the past when schools worked better it was because many of the country’s most talented women—who were blocked by discrimination from pursuing other professions—were left with teaching as one of the only careers open to them and that these talented women became excellent teachers. Critics on the Right blame the lack of competition for the public schools, which, they claim, thus have a monopoly and as with other monopolies are not accountable to the public. Or, that teachers unions have become so powerful in most cities where the challenges are greatest that they resist change out of their sole interest in protecting teachers from arbitrary principals and work rules.
There is truth in all of these critiques and of course there are in spite of them individual schools and a few districts that are beating the odds. And even in dysfunctional schools there are individual teachers who somehow manage to educate and inspire. But we cannot survive as a viable nation if we depend on these exceptions and a smattering of talented people.
At the heart of the matter, more than anything else, is that too few of our teachers are effective. There are many reasons for this. Some cited above. Perhaps foremost is any lack or real accountability after a teacher passes through her or his probationary period and receives tenure—a lifetime guarantee of employment no matter how well or poorly a teacher subsequently performs. After a teacher receives tenure it is virtually impossible to be dismissed. In most places you literally have to commit a crime for there to be grounds for dismissal. And therefore there is no real way to hold a teacher accountable for poor performance.
Those who favor tenure assert it is necessary to prevent teachers from being arbitrarily fired. That is not an entirely false claim—the tenure system came into being in the early 20th century to protect against patronage hirings and was expanded in the 1950s during the McCarthy period when there was some purging of teachers (rather little actually) because of their alleged pro-communist political views. The fear was that they would indoctrinate their charges.
But there are ways to protect senior teachers from arbitrary administrative behavior short of granting them lifelong tenure. In fact, the new school superintendent in Washington DC is attempting to take on the tenure system. She is proposing a voluntary program where teachers would receive $40,000 a year beyond their current salaries if they would give up tenure for a year. A year in which they would be reevaluated and then either retained or let go.
As superintendent Michelle Rhee puts it, “Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults. If we can put veteran teachers who have tenure in a position where they don’t have it, that would help us to radically increase our teacher quality. And maybe other districts would try it, too.” (Quoted in the New York Times story linked below.)
Not surprisingly, the teachers union opposes her plan, which would be funded by private foundations, as do three-quarters of the teachers. So, we’ll see what happens.
My money is on the teachers union. Dramatic reforms of this kind have foundered in Washington and in big cities elsewhere and I suspect Ms. Rhee will be moving on before too long--superintendents do not have tenure.
But Obama’s right—improving our schools should be a top priority; and if he puts his shoulder to it, real progress is possible. Though, considering the odds and the forces of the status quo, it won’t be easy.
But it shouldn’t be our highest priority. Though it was given short shrift during the recent presidential campaign, I was pleased to see that Barack Obama placed fixing the nation’s ailing schools near the top of his agenda.
Of course he will have to focus on the economic crisis and that will probably leave little time to pay attention to schooling and even less money for education; and though that would be a pity, there is a lot that can be done without a great deal of additional federal money, things we must do, and soon, to make sure our kids get a world class education so they can be prepared to compete in the 21st century economy. Because if we want to build our economy—forgetting fairness for the moment—it is imperative that we do a better job with our children: growing the economy is inexorably tied to improving our public schools.
About a third of America’s students are enrolled in low-performing schools. That’s 15 million kids. And though there is a federal role to play in helping to improve their schools, it is limited. The Feds supply only a very small fraction of the total cost of providing an education since, constitutionally, the control of education is left to the individual states. Even attempts by the federal government to set achievement standards can be ignored as long as school districts opt to not seek certain forms of federal support. Thus much of the resistance to No Child Left Behind.
A president, especially one like Barack Obama, can use the bully pulpit to urge kids to literally pull up their pants and get serious about studying if they want to have a better life. They can set an example, also like Obama. And I am certain he will do a great deal of this. If he names Colin Powell as Secretary of Education, which is rumored, Powell too can provide inspiration by example. There is already evidence that kids, African American boys particularly, in some schools are already telling their teachers that they want to learn more and are willing to work harder so that they can grow up and be like Barack Obama.
But if this aspirational trend continues and expands, will the schools, more specifically will the teachers we have be up to the challenge? Sadly, for the most part, I don’t think so.
There are reasons for this. Many cite low pay. Others the poor quality of teacher training and certification. Some claim that in the past when schools worked better it was because many of the country’s most talented women—who were blocked by discrimination from pursuing other professions—were left with teaching as one of the only careers open to them and that these talented women became excellent teachers. Critics on the Right blame the lack of competition for the public schools, which, they claim, thus have a monopoly and as with other monopolies are not accountable to the public. Or, that teachers unions have become so powerful in most cities where the challenges are greatest that they resist change out of their sole interest in protecting teachers from arbitrary principals and work rules.
There is truth in all of these critiques and of course there are in spite of them individual schools and a few districts that are beating the odds. And even in dysfunctional schools there are individual teachers who somehow manage to educate and inspire. But we cannot survive as a viable nation if we depend on these exceptions and a smattering of talented people.
At the heart of the matter, more than anything else, is that too few of our teachers are effective. There are many reasons for this. Some cited above. Perhaps foremost is any lack or real accountability after a teacher passes through her or his probationary period and receives tenure—a lifetime guarantee of employment no matter how well or poorly a teacher subsequently performs. After a teacher receives tenure it is virtually impossible to be dismissed. In most places you literally have to commit a crime for there to be grounds for dismissal. And therefore there is no real way to hold a teacher accountable for poor performance.
Those who favor tenure assert it is necessary to prevent teachers from being arbitrarily fired. That is not an entirely false claim—the tenure system came into being in the early 20th century to protect against patronage hirings and was expanded in the 1950s during the McCarthy period when there was some purging of teachers (rather little actually) because of their alleged pro-communist political views. The fear was that they would indoctrinate their charges.
But there are ways to protect senior teachers from arbitrary administrative behavior short of granting them lifelong tenure. In fact, the new school superintendent in Washington DC is attempting to take on the tenure system. She is proposing a voluntary program where teachers would receive $40,000 a year beyond their current salaries if they would give up tenure for a year. A year in which they would be reevaluated and then either retained or let go.
As superintendent Michelle Rhee puts it, “Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults. If we can put veteran teachers who have tenure in a position where they don’t have it, that would help us to radically increase our teacher quality. And maybe other districts would try it, too.” (Quoted in the New York Times story linked below.)
Not surprisingly, the teachers union opposes her plan, which would be funded by private foundations, as do three-quarters of the teachers. So, we’ll see what happens.
My money is on the teachers union. Dramatic reforms of this kind have foundered in Washington and in big cities elsewhere and I suspect Ms. Rhee will be moving on before too long--superintendents do not have tenure.
But Obama’s right—improving our schools should be a top priority; and if he puts his shoulder to it, real progress is possible. Though, considering the odds and the forces of the status quo, it won’t be easy.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
6:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home