Recently I’ve been on the North Carolina General Assembly. For the first time in over a century republicans control both the state house and the state senate. And in that time they’ve made two pretty big mistakes:
- Trying to overturn the Racial Justice Act
- Trying to pass Amendment One – Making a constitutional amendment that bars gay marriage.
Now, however, they have announced a new plan that would dramatically impact public education in North Carolina:
Raleigh, N.C. — North Carolina’s public school teachers would see employment tenure eliminated, but become eligible for performance bonuses under an education reform package rolled out Monday by Senate Republicans.
This is AWESOME!
The ability to fire under performing employees is critical in maintaining a productive and highly achieving staff. By keeping archaic tenure laws on the books schools are forced to lose young and innovative teachers at the expense of retaining old potentially poor performing teachers when they are forced to make staffing decisions. Rather than keeping, promoting and handing out bonuses based on performance, schools are forced to pay older teachers more for no other reason than the calendar turned.
“We’ve said for a long time that the policy needs to be right in order for us to expect the kinds of results the people of North Carolina and our kids deserve,” Berger, R-Rockingham, said.
The proposal would do away with tenure to veteran public schools teachers who now receive their permanent teaching license after a four-year probationary period. The current policy makes it difficult to fire the tenured teachers when administrators determine they are ineffective, Berger’s office said. Instead, the changes would allow local school boards to employ all teachers on an annual contract that doesn’t have to be renewed each fall.
“If a system determines presently that a teacher is an ineffective teacher, it is very difficult if not impossible for them to discharge that teacher,’ Berger said. “This would provide systems with tools that would allow a superintendent or a local school board to make decisions about hiring the best teachers for their kids.”
Mr. Berger is correct. By allowing superintendents and school boards greater latitude in staffing decisions resulting in the very best teachers staying in the profession and the poor performing teachers would be let go.
This is long past due.
While you should be able to fire ineffective teachers, I worry about places trying to get rid of more expensive 50-something teachers to replace with cheaper just out of college newbies. The 50 somethings can’t get work easily. They should negotiate conditions of removal of ineffective teachers with clear guidelines rather than just leaving it to administrative whim. You could keep tenure with post-tenure reviews and a process to discipline or dismiss. In short, there should be ways both sides could work on a system that open up already underpaid teachers to potential abuse.
While you should be able to fire ineffective teachers
This is key. We LOVE good teachers. We HATE poor ones.
I worry about places trying to get rid of more expensive 50-something teachers to replace with cheaper just out of college newbies.
This concern is not unique to teaching. The world employs millions of 50 somethings.
The 50 somethings can’t get work easily.
With all due respect, when it comes to my kid’s education, I could give a fuck about the career opportunities of ineffective 50+ teachers.
They should negotiate conditions of removal of ineffective teachers with clear guidelines rather than just leaving it to administrative whim.
There is a reason that teachers are “underpaid.” It’s because they are a protected class. Free them from this condition and they will become better paid.
My school district has an interesting evaluation form. It contains 5 pages of “skills”. Next to each item there are 3 choices. They are Satisfactory, Needs Improvement, and Unsatisfactory. I find this strange for two reasons. First, the evaluation form does not allow me to be Exceptional or even Very Good; all they want is Satisfactory. The bigger problem is that we set the bar so low that most folks expect to be rubber stamped through the entire process. Four years ago, a colleague received one Needs Improvement, and the Union claimed foul. The teacher was very good, and received a Satisfactory in all but one area. Isn’t it possible that a very good teacher might actually have room for improvement??? The problem was that the administrator was new to the district and did not “Know” the system. Here is the way the Union expected it to be handled. The administrator marks all of the boxes Satisfactory. While handing the form to the teacher to sign, the administrator uses a few seconds to tell the teacher of the areas that need improvement. NEVER write those down on the evaluation because it then becomes part of the teacher’s permanent record. Welcome to the “Boy’s Club of public education”.
While handing the form to the teacher to sign, the administrator uses a few seconds to tell the teacher of the areas that need improvement. NEVER write those down on the evaluation because it then becomes part of the teacher’s permanent record. Welcome to the “Boy’s Club of public education”.
Yup.
And in the union world, that is probably how it SHOULD be handled.
One of the problems with no tenure is that usually the town only has one school or one school district. And being let go from that school means that the teacher has no other option to work as a teacher in that town.
If I’m fired from my job I can just walk down the street.