If Obama were an Untenured Teacher...
Published April 20, 2009 @ 02:04PM PT
...judging by this piece from the AP, he'd be facing parental calls for dismissal over such "controversial" behavior as -
- Admitt[ing] to Europeans that America deserves at least part of the blame for the world's financial crisis because it did not regulate high-flying and greedy Wall Street gamblers. . . .
- [Shaking] hands with, more than once, and accept[ing] a book from Hugo Chavez, the virulently anti-American leader of oil-rich Venezuela. . . .
- [Saying] America's appetite for illegal drugs and its lax control of the flow of guns and cash to Mexico were partly to blame for the drug-lord-inspired violence that is rattling the southern U.S. neighbor. . . .
- [Saying] that first, he remains intent on telling the world that the United States is a powerful and wealthy nation that realizes it is just one country among many. [But also saying] he believes that other countries have "good ideas" and interests that cannot be ignored.
- [Saying] the United States best represents itself by living up to its universal values and ideas, [but] it must also respect the variety of cultures and perspectives that guide both American foes and friends.
If the president of the United States catches hell for being civil and speaking common sense, imagine how dangerous such behavior as a teacher can be. That's one reason tenure is important. It allows teachers to approach politically unpopular ideas without jeopardizing their jobs, instead of being classroom propagandists and mythologists.
Time Magazine managing editor Richard Stengel doesn't seem to get this unique justification for tenure in the teaching profession. In his sloppy fluff piece on Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Stengel goes from interviewer to anti-labor tool with this comment:
I think parents look at tenured teachers and say, I don't have tenure in my job — why should teachers have tenure?
Sheesh, Dick, most parents don't face unemployment for exercising academic freedom and intellectual integrity. You don't get fired on Wall Street or Main Street for pointing out that America is not perfect or Genesis is not a science textbook. You do in schools.
To Duncan's credit, he doesn't seize on Stengel's line to ramp up the union-bashing even more (though he doesn't object to it with any force either).
Image by marcn
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
Obama's Ed Budget: Change We Can Believe In?
-
Weekly Web Round-up 090208
-
Mr. Obama, Tear Down This School!
Comments (11)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Clay is an American high school Humanities teacher, technology coach, and Apple Distinguished Educator who has taught for the last eight years in Asian international schools. According to law, he's married to his wife. According to his wife, he's married to his Mac.
Featured Education Actions
-
-
-
Eliminate Violence Against Women
1739 People
-
Eliminate Violence Against Women
You know what? I think parents look at tenured teachers and say, my taxes pay your salary so make sure you're doing what I want you to do.
Tenure, or whatever you'd like to call it (here it's "continuing contract status") is in place for a reason. Unfortunately, what gets seized upon in the media are the cases where the tenure system winds up protecting a bad teacher or two. I've seen too many stories on 20/20 and other shows where an "investigation" uncovers that a bad teacher wasn't fired from some school in New York City because he had tenure. Meanwhile, there are thousands of teachers with a well-deserved tenure.
I mean, I'm not naive enough to think that any tenure system is perfect, but I think Stengel needs to take his bait and go fishing somewhere else.
Great post, btw.
Posted by Tom Panarese on 04/20/2009 @ 05:20PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Actually, if you look at the statistics, no teachers ever get fired. And those very few that do don't get dismissed for 'academic freedom' issues. It's nearly always insubordination, crime of moral turpitude, or incompetence.
I'm just sayin'...
Posted by Scott McLeod on 04/20/2009 @ 10:06PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Send me a link to the statistics, Scott.
Here's one science teacher in Texas who was told to resign, or else be fired, for sending an email to her colleagues about a visiting evolution writer: http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=cs_&page=NewsArticle&id=10156
I also listened to the Texas BOE hearings about standards, and heard them complain that teachers used the word "capitalism" instead of "free enterprise" in their US History standards, and insist that stop. That's not a case of firing, I know, but it is a case of restricting academic freedom.
I've got a post on here somewhere from an L.A. teacher who wrote an article for Counterpunch. Here's a snippet:
"Maher made a huge deal of the fact that, because of the union’s protective shield, less than 1% of California’s tenured/post-probationary teachers get fired. Although this ratio clearly outraged him (he appeared visibly upset by it), had he taken five minutes to research the subject, he’d have realized that this figure represents the national average—with or without unions.
In Georgia, where 92.5% of the teachers are non-union, only 0.5% of tenured/post-probationary teachers get fired. In South Carolina, where 100% of the teachers are non-union, it’s 0.32%. And in North Carolina, where 97.7% are non-union, a miniscule .03% of tenured/post-probationary teachers get fired—the exact same percentage as California.
An even more startling comparison: In California, with its “powerful” teachers’ union, school administrators fire, on average, 6.91% of its probationary teachers. In non-union North Carolina, that figure is only 1.38%. California is actually tougher on prospective candidates."
--
-I'd love to see breakdowns of how many of these dismissals were over academic issues, and how many over incompetence or turpitude.
Seriously, send a link!
Posted by Clay Burell on 04/20/2009 @ 11:00PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Unfortunately the hard statistical evidence on this is hard to find. I'm not sure why. You quoted many of the types of stats I'd use too. In regard to cause for termination, spend some time with state department of education attorneys (as I've done). They'll tell you what the main categories are... =)
Sorry. Wish I had some really hard numbers for you. The examples you cite are egregious but I'm pretty certain those are outliers, not the mainstream.
Posted by Scott McLeod on 04/20/2009 @ 11:21PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
But Scott, even if they are "outliers," I'd argue they still have a very powerful "chilling effect" on teachers. One outlier can be a very powerful warning to others "not to go there." And since they stop going there, there's no cause for firing or discipline - and also no academic integrity or freedom.
You've surely seen the studies showing that a large percentage of science teachers avoid talking about evolution out of parental fear. If not, I can rummage my Diigo for several links.
Posted by Clay Burell on 04/21/2009 @ 03:36PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Being a teacher is one of the most criticized jobs in the nation. It is sad that in these days, the days of "teaching to the test", teachers have no freedom to express any of their own beliefs (I'm not talking religious here, but more just political/social beliefs). It is a scary thought that a teacher can be fired for making his/her class read the wrong book, or even just telling an opinion about our government and our world today.
Posted by Lauren Carmichael on 04/21/2009 @ 08:13AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Here in the sometimes-too-liberal Bay Area, my daughter had a young 9th grade social studies teacher who occasionally enjoyed bashing the military in front of the class. He was a decent teacher in most other ways.
One day when my daughter spoke out against his rhetoric, and mentioned her father was in the Navy Reserve, the teacher launched a few nasty attacks her way. She kept this incident to herself, and only told us what had happened after the teacher had left the school a year or so later. She told us that his harsh, narrow-minded response had brought her close to tears; her crying isn't easily provoked.
We had a good conversation with her about what had happened, but much, much after the fact. Things like this can happen because teenagers like to be independent and want to handle things on their own.
Even after knowing about this incident, I still support the right for teachers to be protected from being fired without due process. Some principals are definitely vindictive and emotionally immature. I've seen how some give special favors to those who are their teachers' pets and friends, and do the opposite to those they don't particularly "like."
As far as I am concerned, this teacher's behavior was inappropriate. I would have liked most if my husband and I had the opportunity to have an encounter with him with a mediator, or the principal, in the room. It might have helped him expand what he knows, and grow.
Posted by Sharon Higgins on 04/21/2009 @ 09:56AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Sharon, that's interesting. Any teacher who teaches his/her own opinion as "true," rather than inviting inquiry and discussion about differing opinions about an issue is indoctrinating instead of fostering thought (as long as those opinions are validated by evidence, anyway - I wouldn't give class time to a protracted debate about the validity of horoscopes, e.g.).
I've invited parents with concerns to join class discussions on forums and even Skype. You're the kind of parent, it seems, who would jump at that sort of community learning.
I love your post on "charter police," by the way.
Posted by Clay Burell on 04/21/2009 @ 03:41PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Maybe this is a stupid question. But some of the statistics I've seen show new teachers (0-3 years) being fired at higher rates than experienced teachers.
But isn't it possible that the discrepancy here is because the lousy teachers never go on to be experienced teachers? How can we really have a valid measure of this? Anecdotes pack a powerful punch, but not much in the way of broad information about the system there.
Posted by Hilary McDevitt on 04/21/2009 @ 06:52PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
At least here in Texas, you sign a probationary contract your first years with a district; after you've passed the "trial period" you get a permanent contract. It is much easier to release someone from a probationary contract than from a permanent contract, which may be the reason the newbies get fired while the older teachers stay put.
Sadly, in this profession being an experienced teacher does not automatically mean you're a good teacher. I'd argue the younger teachers are better, because they're more open to new ideas (and new technology); older teachers tend to get stuck in their ways and ignore new research, teaching methods, etc.
However, new teachers are susceptible to stupid mistakes, which can make parents complain (especially if that teacher is making her students work and some of them don't like that), and the administration lets that teacher go to make the parents happy.
(Geez... can you tell I'm one of those old, curmodgeony, burnt-out teachers?)
One way to see if my theory (about contacts) holds water would be to look at the number of teachers who are fired in the first few years with a district (not total years of experience, but years in that district/ under probationary contracts). I'll still argue that new teachers, even though they may be excellent educators, can make a dumb PR mistake which can lead to non-renewal of a contract.
Posted by Criss Cox on 04/25/2009 @ 08:06PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
(I had a long, angry, ranty comment... but I deleted it. I'm going to try to write something smart and coherent instead.)
One of the biggest benefits of teaching is the job security, especially if you're certified (the real way) and have experience. Tenure would not entice me at all, because the teacher shortage all but guarantees that I'll either keep my job, or be able to find a job at another district (unless I commit a crime, which I do not plan on doing).
What makes my job unbearable is unreasonable parents. Parents who bring complaints like the ones you posted against the President.
Now, some parent concerns are valid, like Sharon's (had her daughter told her about it when it happened). But I get a lot of the parents who want Johnny to get a passing grade just because Johnny says so (or because Johnny has a game this week, and No Pass No Play puts a big crimp in his style).
Instead of tenure, I'd much rather have a secretary to screen parent calls. This would benefit parents, as well; if the parent has a serious concern, such as Sharon's case, then the administrator can be alerted and included in the parent conference. However, if a parent wants a conference just to ask me to move Sally's assigned seat because right now Sally is sitting next to her friends and she talks to them a lot (I teach high school; the emails back and forth to arrange the conference took three times longer than the conference itself. Which was rescheduled twice and ended up being on a Friday afternoon).
I understand that taxes pay our salary, but that doesn't mean I have to follow each and every parent's whims and demands. I am a professional educator, and I know what I'm doing. There is no reason I should have to sit in a conference and listen to someone, who has no knowledge or experience doing my job, tell me how to do my job.
Posted by Criss Cox on 04/25/2009 @ 07:56PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.