Reposted with the permission of the American Federation of Teachers
http://www.aft.org
Where We Stand
by Albert Shanker
The Push Against Tenure
There is currently a big attack on teacher tenure--particularly in the 
media. Look, for example, at the "20/20" segment that aired in February. If 
you took its presentation of tenure seriously, you'd conclude that tenure 
is an insult to common sense and its principal effect is to protect 
incompetent teachers by giving them lifetime jobs from which it is almost 
impossible to remove them. I'll take up this gross distortion in a moment.
     First, though, "20/20" did not even get the facts right.  During a 
parade of horrors, it said that a Michigan school was "unable to dismiss a 
teacher who threatened a third-grade student with a knife" and implied that 
the teacher got away without punishment. What really happened? According to 
the Michigan Department of Education (_Education Week_, Letters, June 19, 
1996), the threat was an unfortunate joke, and the tenure commission 
decided not to fire the teacher because it weighed his error in judgment 
against a 22-year record of  "effective" teaching. Instead, it suspended 
him for two years without pay. But the caricature of a teacher (protected 
by tenure) pulling a knife on a young child--and then getting off 
scot-free--is what will stick in the minds of "20/20" viewers. Unless, of 
course, they read _Education Week_'s even more sensational version of the 
story (April 17, 1996), in which the teacher "threatened children with 
knives."  
     But doesn't tenure protect incompetent teachers? No, it protects 
competent ones by giving them the right to due process. Tenure means that a 
teacher can't be let go just because he or she has said something that 
annoyed the principal or because a parent objects to a book on the reading 
list and is making it hot for the school board. And it means that a teacher 
can't be fired  because a board member has a young friend or relative who 
needs a job. 
     Remember the story of Adele Jones? She's the Delaware math teacher who 
was fired for "incompetence" because the school board said she had flunked 
"too many" students. (The kids said she was a good teacher, and if they 
flunked it was because they hadn't done the work.) Ultimately, Adele Jones 
got her job back--because of tenure. Occasionally, there is an injustice 
and somebody who deserves to be fired keeps his job. That, as people 
realize in connection with our system of justice, is the price for having 
fair procedures.
     As for hiring and retaining mediocre or incompetent teachers, the 
principals and the school boards are the main culprits here. The union acts 
as a kind of defense attorney when a tenured teacher is in trouble--that is 
its legal responsibility. However, the problems start much earlier. When 
working conditions or pay are poor, administrators may have to hire people 
they know are marginal. At the end of the probationary period, which is 
three years on average, a large majority of probationary teachers end up 
getting tenure, whether or not they deserve it. Sometimes administrators 
don't think they can find replacements who'll be any better; sometimes it's 
just that they hate to fire anybody. Administrators are also the ones who 
let incompetent teachers with tenure hang on without either trying to help 
them, or, if it is clear that they will never improve, easing them out or 
making the case for firing them. 
     Probably the biggest reason administrators don't get rid of poor 
teachers is that firing someone is an unpleasant thing to do.  In the 
southern states where teachers are not protected by tenure, administrators 
could fire them much more freely, but there is no evidence that they do. 
And it doesn't happen much in businesses, either, which is why you find 
marginal employees who draw their paychecks year after year.
     What about the objection that tenure means it takes too long and costs 
too much to get rid of a bad teacher? There is no question that procedures 
in many jurisdictions are cumbersome and expensive, but that is no reason 
to get rid of tenure. Other lines of work with adversarial proceedings 
avoid roadblocks by using procedures like expedited arbitration and making 
rules that prevent delay. There is no reason why we couldn't work out 
something similar for hearings involving teachers and school boards.
     The policies and procedures governing tenure are not perfect or 
perfectly carried out, but the principle is sound. Perhaps most Americans 
understand that, despite the deluge of anti-tenure propaganda from the 
media. That's what is suggested by the results of an informal poll 
conducted by a New York State senator in his district. The senator didn't 
mention tenure. Instead, he asked constituents,  "Should teachers who have 
successfully served a three-year probation be entitled to a due process 
hearing before being disciplined?"  Seventy-six percent said *yes.* Instead 
of getting rid of tenure, which is what the one-sided accounts in the media 
are pushing, we need to reacquaint people with what the word *tenure* 
really means.
Chuck Beams
cbeams@dreamscape.com
http://www.dreamscape.com/cbeams
___
* UniQWK #5290* Computers are not intelligent.  They only think they are.
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------