It's spring 2011, and I am no longer called Heather among my peers. Instead, I am known by my number: 164. That's my place on our district's seniority list. With the pink slip plague rippling out from our district's first-year teachers toward those of us in our 11th, all of us in the danger zone are sweating.
Some call the seniority list equitable; others call it antiquated.
Bottom line: it's a flawed system. Seniority permits security, but doesn't provide incentive, and we cannot allow that which is broken to remain sacrosanct when it serves one purpose well but fails in serving others.
1. It would be too tempting to segregate teachers based on price, not quality. In the past, the most expensive teachers, the most experienced, were the most tempting to cut, especially during eras of tight budgets.
2. It's a marathon, not a sprint. Youngest does not equate to best. Knowledge of both content and the ability to communicate that content comes with longevity.
3. Schools need a generational balance for the greatest efficiency. Veterans are needed to train our new troops. Cutting our most experienced also means cutting our most wise. Reinventing the wheel wastes instructional time and professional energy.
4. Teachers are vulnerable to the ebb and flow of administrative tides. Administrators are very nomadic; teachers are more constant. A staff should not be dissected by those not committed to longevity on a site.
5. Many times people blame tenure for the existence of poor teachers rather than place the blame where it really belongs. Teacher prep programs are not doing their job of being the initial gatekeepers of quality. Furthermore, many administrators do not go through the trouble of identifying teachers who are not performing well. We can't eliminate due process because some aren't doing their job.
6. Seniority is unbiased. Even some younger teachers agree with this. Defining effective teaching is very vague and subjective, and seniority is equitable.
1. Retention based merely on a seniority list casts aside some of our most promising teachers. Why would people who invest in themselves and earn a credential enter a profession where their effort doesn't ensure their employment?
2. The security of tenure can encourage mediocrity. When a person's job security isn't tied to quality, why put in the most effort? While there are many excellent teachers out there, there are clearly those whose practice has become too relaxed.
3. A system set up to reward people based on hire date does not encourage professional growth. Tenure should be about reward. It shouldn't be doled out to those who just remain under the radar long enough to be given the golden chalice. Great teaching is about remaining current in our content and forward thinking in our strategies to prepare our students for their future. Why continue to invest in our own development when all teachers have to do to ensure their employment is to remain constant?
Picking off our most experienced teachers to balance the budget is not in the best interest of the kids or schools, nor is giving our rising new generation of teachers the boot without any consideration of quality. So what do we do? Well, just as science fiction often gives us glimmers of the science to come, I think "education fiction" might reveal the possibility of a greater educational system in the years ahead. So let's mull and dream. What if...?
*...Tenure was granted in 5-year increments that could then be re-upped and re-evaluated based on firm guidelines?
* ...Teachers were scored on multiple measures? The National Council of Teaching Quality released a report on using alternative measures to determine a teacher's position, based on a combination of 3Rs (roles, rules, and rights) that take into account teaching ability as well as seniority.
* ...Teachers were scored by parents, students, and administrators, and observed by colleagues? In turn, what if teachers also evaluated administrators, so that each stakeholder had input in the make up of a school's staff?
* ...More K-12 teachers were allowed alternative ways to work in hybrid roles? Imagine teachers with one foot in the classroom and one foot in another branch of the profession, (as online teachers, virtual and face-to-face mentors, teacher educators, authors, etc.). Hybrid roles would keep many teachers from burning out professionally, would also allow districts to save money by spreading teacher salaries across two or more income sources.
*...Evaluations were more authentic and honest? Much of the current criticism of seniority grows out of an all-or-nothing approach to evaluation--a choice between "satisfactory" and "unsatisfactory." Perhaps some differentiation is in order?
Tenure needs to be a precious thing. It should exist, but it should be something teachers strive for, not something granted just because we didn't offend administrators during our first two years on the job.
But it's important for civilians to remember that teachers aren't the villains in this story. They may be the easiest to vilify, but they are the ones teaching in schools our society has given up on. They are the ones trying to meet conflicting mandates from every side. Society shouldn't confuse a broken system with broken people. Learning in a classroom occurs when kids are energized and encouraged by a great teacher of any age.
However, if people are to know just how many of us out there are effective, we need to speak out from the trenches. Society will listen to those with the loudest voices, and ours are only just beginning to whisper.
An earlier version of this article appeared in Teacher Magazine. You can view that version here.
Follow Heather Wolpert-Gawron on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tweenteacher
Richard Whitmire: Should Teachers Be Laid Off By Seniority?
Pressure Mounts To Ax Teacher Seniority Rules : NPR
Is teacher seniority deal possible? - Times Union
Bloomberg Lambasts Teacher Seniority, Warns Of Pending Layoffs
Bloomberg Presses Cuomo for Control of Teacher Layoffs - NYTimes.com
Teacher Seniority Rules Resisted Amid Layoffs - WSJ.com
Pressure mounts to ax teacher seniority rules | 89.3 KPCC
Judge leaning toward approving changes in teacher seniority rules ...
I wish teacher's unions would begin to understand that they are their own worst enemies. The continually scream for more money, "rights" that few other people have, and job security that few taxpayers have.
They tell us how important they are, but then tell us that they don't have enough control over what happens in a class room to be held accountable.
Any suggestion for improvement is automatically rejected.
But let's just deal with the District players. For instance, the District decides which "Educational Consultants" they pay five-to-six figures to every other year to buy from said experts a "new and improved way" of teaching reading. This "new and improved" program has a fancy new name, but isn't ever run by teachers per consensus for real-classroom application. The new program is shoved down teachers' lesson plans by mandate, even when it hasn't been proven that the "old" program, a whopping two-years-old program, was failing. But the District thinks that it shows "the public" that it is DOING SOMETHING for education. It's akin to changing horses in midstream when your current horse is just fine, just so you can show off your fancy managerial moves. The result, a K-6th-grade student can be exposed to three to four different strategies for learning how to read - which could actually hinder reading progress because of the inconsistencies. This is NOT in the teachers control, but that fancy program cost, paid every other year, could be spent on reducing class size, and increasing aide presence, giving PROVEN methods more ground to help teach children.
All that money is irresponsibly spent, then the District cries poverty, and teachers are blamed for that, too.
Teachers don't control parental apathy, gang exposure, or poverty either.
Practical question: who's going to do all of the evaluations? I'm asking because I don't know. Last time my turn came to be evaluated, the principal didn't even have time to do a full evaluation.
In any event, as I am a special education teacher, a lot of my job happens behind the scenes, collaborating with general education teachers, checking in with parents, writing reports, performing academic assessments, creating behavior plans, etc. I also work in a small district; currently there is only one administrator credentialed and experienced in my field who can evaluate my teaching. Ironically, she is the assistant principal, who may have her job cut in half by budget cuts (so she'll walk).
A lot of special education teachers are wondering what the upshot of "reform" will be, as it relates to how effective teaching is measured. Test scores alone won't cut it. Not fair to the kids, not fair to the teachers. In an era where cut-backs and resource deprivation will become the norm, will thoroughness and fairness be part of teacher evaluations? Or only expediency?
If this educator is referring to the story of a widening achievement gap, rising dropout rates, and a monocultural (90% White), largely culturally incompetent teacher workforce that has failed to engage a generation of students -- I would love to know who she WOULD name as the villain.
Would this middle school instructor fault her students? Because lately, that's been the trend at HPEd. Posters, many self-identifying as public school teachers, would like to blame students -- and parents -- for our failed schools.
One thing is certain, teachers are not the heroes. So yes, they're the easiest to vilify, because they should be the heroes.
But teachers -- through their unions -- have been the biggest and most vocal defenders of the status quo. That attitude is reflected in the seniority argument that -- experience equals talent.
Even now, as Americans are finally having a serious national discussion of education, the teacher unions' contribution has been to picket "Waiting for Superman," complain about President Obama, and bizarrely insist that they have little to do with student achievement.
For a comprehensive look at the situation, please review the 2006 study from Education Trust called, "Teaching Inequality: How Poor and Minority Students Are Shortchanged on Teacher Quality."
In fact, a mediocre teacher with a lot of years in the classroom can be doing more of a disservice to students than a teacher with fresh training who is young but excited about finding new ways of raising student achievement.
I applaud you for trying teaching and for doing so well at it - for four and a half months. But puh-leeze understand your own severe limitations to evaluating the "system." It may not have been right for you - that's understandable as many who have tried have also left. Even when the economy was good, only about 20% of those who enter a credential program make it into their tenth year of teaching. It's that hard - and discouraging.
But, seriously, your semester, let alone your sub. time, in no way exposed you to the circus. You have NO idea. You have an opinion, but you have NO idea.
Re other professions: Let me ask you, would you get rid of your interns and residents or your experienced surgeons?
F&F
CON: It's bad for the students stuck with them.
This is unfair and age discriminatroy.
This is happening to us and will happen to you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/education/07winerip.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=education
Might I also suggest that evaluations recognized by a majority of folks (standardized tests) are also flawed?
from the article: "Moreover, as the city indicates on the data reports, there is a large margin of error. So Ms. Isaacson’s 7th percentile could actually be as low as zero or as high as the 52nd percentile — a score that could have earned her tenure."
65 out of 66 of her students tested proficient. Past students laud her abilities, as do colleagues and her principal. Yet the "standardized" evaluation has a margin of error so large, it places her squarely between percentile 0 and 52.
Yea, thats definitively rock solid evidence to base someone's professional future on.
For anyone to suggest that we posses objective means to determine a teacher's worth is either being disingenuous or dishonest.
I think the same about student's and their assessment. It IS slippery. Like life.
Standardized measurements for teachers and students are okay. Testing one group of people and using the results to judge another group is where you run into trouble.
The majority of veteran teachers are continually trying to learn and improve their skills up to their retirement through workshops, in-services, and attending conferences in their areas of expertise.