Colorado's new teacher tenure law

[Borderdawg]

What do those of you who are educators think about it?

[PLAYER57832]

I am not an educator, but you might get more response if you mention the law or at least provide a link with information on it.

[Borderdawg]

bold move, Colorado alters teacher tenure rules
By COLLEEN SLEVIN (AP) – 19 hours ago
DENVER — Colorado is changing the rules for how teachers earn and keep the sweeping job protections known as tenure, linking student performance to job security despite outcry from teacher unions that have steadfastly defended the system for decades.
Many education reform advocates consider tenure to be one of the biggest obstacles to improving America's schools because it makes removing mediocre or even incompetent teachers difficult.
Colorado's legislature changed tenure rules despite opposition from the state's largest teacher's union, a longtime ally of majority Democrats. Gov. Bill Ritter, also a Democrat, signed the bill into law last month.
It requires teachers to be evaluated annually, with at least half of their rating based on whether their students progressed during the school year. Beginning teachers will have to show they've boosted student achievement for three straight years to earn tenure.
Teachers could lose tenure if their students don't show progress for two consecutive years. Under the old system, teachers simply had to work for three years to gain tenure, the typical wait around the country.
After the bill survived a filibuster attempt and passed a key House vote, Democratic Rep. Nancy Todd, a 25-year teacher who opposed the measure, broke into tears.
"I don't question your motives," an emotional Todd said to the bill's proponents. "But I do want you to hear my heart because my heart is speaking for over 40,000 teachers in the state of Colorado who have been given the message that it is all up to them."

(Sorry, Player, meant to do that, but my feet were puppy attacked about the time I started!! Little rascal got some sharp teeth!)

[Frigidus]

bold move, Colorado alters teacher tenure rules
By COLLEEN SLEVIN (AP) – 19 hours ago
DENVER — Colorado is changing the rules for how teachers earn and keep the sweeping job protections known as tenure, linking student performance to job security despite outcry from teacher unions that have steadfastly defended the system for decades.
Many education reform advocates consider tenure to be one of the biggest obstacles to improving America's schools because it makes removing mediocre or even incompetent teachers difficult.
Colorado's legislature changed tenure rules despite opposition from the state's largest teacher's union, a longtime ally of majority Democrats. Gov. Bill Ritter, also a Democrat, signed the bill into law last month.
It requires teachers to be evaluated annually, with at least half of their rating based on whether their students progressed during the school year. Beginning teachers will have to show they've boosted student achievement for three straight years to earn tenure.
Teachers could lose tenure if their students don't show progress for two consecutive years. Under the old system, teachers simply had to work for three years to gain tenure, the typical wait around the country.
After the bill survived a filibuster attempt and passed a key House vote, Democratic Rep. Nancy Todd, a 25-year teacher who opposed the measure, broke into tears.
"I don't question your motives," an emotional Todd said to the bill's proponents. "But I do want you to hear my heart because my heart is speaking for over 40,000 teachers in the state of Colorado who have been given the message that it is all up to them."

(Sorry, Player, meant to do that, but my feet were puppy attacked about the time I started!! Little rascal got some sharp teeth!)

It depends on how they measure progress. Standardized testing is close to useless when it comes to figuring out these kinds of things, and I'm not sure how else you can measure learning.

[MeDeFe]

bold move, Colorado alters teacher tenure rules
By COLLEEN SLEVIN (AP) – 19 hours ago
DENVER — Colorado is changing the rules for how teachers earn and keep the sweeping job protections known as tenure, linking student performance to job security despite outcry from teacher unions that have steadfastly defended the system for decades.
Many education reform advocates consider tenure to be one of the biggest obstacles to improving America's schools because it makes removing mediocre or even incompetent teachers difficult.
Colorado's legislature changed tenure rules despite opposition from the state's largest teacher's union, a longtime ally of majority Democrats. Gov. Bill Ritter, also a Democrat, signed the bill into law last month.
It requires teachers to be evaluated annually, with at least half of their rating based on whether their students progressed during the school year. Beginning teachers will have to show they've boosted student achievement for three straight years to earn tenure.
Teachers could lose tenure if their students don't show progress for two consecutive years. Under the old system, teachers simply had to work for three years to gain tenure, the typical wait around the country.
After the bill survived a filibuster attempt and passed a key House vote, Democratic Rep. Nancy Todd, a 25-year teacher who opposed the measure, broke into tears.
"I don't question your motives," an emotional Todd said to the bill's proponents. "But I do want you to hear my heart because my heart is speaking for over 40,000 teachers in the state of Colorado who have been given the message that it is all up to them."

(Sorry, Player, meant to do that, but my feet were puppy attacked about the time I started!! Little rascal got some sharp teeth!)

It depends on how they measure progress. Standardized testing is close to useless when it comes to figuring out these kinds of things, and I'm not sure how else you can measure learning.

True. If the teachers know what will be in the tests they'll simply make sure their students know that, and know it well, possibly to the exclusion of anything else. That will hardly amount to a well-rounded education.
If the measurement is student's grades the whole thing gets even worse, teachers will just give their students good grades and be done with it.

[Borderdawg]

It depends on how they measure progress. Standardized testing is close to useless when it comes to figuring out these kinds of things, and I'm not sure how else you can measure learning.

True. If the teachers know what will be in the tests they'll simply make sure their students know that, and know it well, possibly to the exclusion of anything else. That will hardly amount to a well-rounded education.
If the measurement is student's grades the whole thing gets even worse, teachers will just give their students good grades and be done with it.

I agree, Frigidus. There has to be a better way.

MeDeFe, isn't that pretty much what's happening now? It's one reason we are trying to get rid of the TAKS here in Texas. It seems the "No Child Left Behind" initiative has become the "Hold All The Children Back", don't you think?

[PLAYER57832]

(Sorry, Player, meant to do that, but my feet were puppy attacked about the time I started!! Little rascal got some sharp teeth!)

lol... I suppose its better your feet than your most expensive shoes.. maybe??? lol

[PLAYER57832]

It depends on how they measure progress. Standardized testing is close to useless when it comes to figuring out these kinds of things, and I'm not sure how else you can measure learning.

True. If the teachers know what will be in the tests they'll simply make sure their students know that, and know it well, possibly to the exclusion of anything else. That will hardly amount to a well-rounded education.
If the measurement is student's grades the whole thing gets even worse, teachers will just give their students good grades and be done with it.

I agree, Frigidus. There has to be a better way.

MeDeFe, isn't that pretty much what's happening now? It's one reason we are trying to get rid of the TAKS here in Texas. It seems the "No Child Left Behind" initiative has become the "Hold All The Children Back", don't you think?

I suppose I can stretch and say I am a teacher.. since I have kids. Anyway, I am interested in what the "professionals" have to say. However, as a parent, I agree with the above. My son is a classic example. He has been able to read roughly 5th grade books with difficulty, and most 3rd-4th grade books (based on accelerated reader rankings, etc) with relative ease since second grade. Yet, he is consistantly tested low. This year, he went down to just above 20% nationally. They insisted on keeping him in remedial reading, refused to move him up. When his next score went even lower, they still tried to claim "success" (meanwhile, he is getting high B's and A's).. fast forward to his last test of the year and "suddenly" he is reading at about a 5th grade level. All "because the teachers were doing their job".

Now, let me add that my son has ADHD. As such, he gets distracted very easily, but also, he is above-average in intelligence. Put the two together and he as almost no tolerance for "rote" or "busy" work. So... what they are really and truly testing is his "maturity", not his abilities. I know I have posted on this before, so I won't go into more detail. The long and the short of it is that my options were to try and home school him or let him go through what the school dictated. Even so, my child is far better off than many. At least I can recognize the issues, can work with him outside of school, etc. Many parents around here plain cannot.

[Woodruff]

What do those of you who are educators think about it?

As a teacher, I find the concept of "tenure" to be insulting. By the same token, it's difficult to grade a teacher on student performance alone simply because it is far too easy for a teacher to rig the results...teaching the tests, etc.

It's really a tough situation to find a good answer for. In my opinion, what's required is for principals to have the authority over pay raises (and firings) and such, much as many middle managers have. Most school districts themselves, however, wouldn't be happy with that at all...and never mind the teacher unions.

[PLAYER57832]

What do those of you who are educators think about it?

As a teacher, I find the concept of "tenure" to be insulting. By the same token, it's difficult to grade a teacher on student performance alone simply because it is far too easy for a teacher to rig the results...teaching the tests, etc.

It's really a tough situation to find a good answer for. In my opinion, what's required is for principals to have the authority over pay raises (and firings) and such, much as many middle managers have. Most school districts themselves, however, wouldn't be happy with that at all...and never mind the teacher unions.

What about parents? I am not convinced that giving a principal more power in this case is a good idea, because it seems that too often they are not really good managers at all. Maybe that would change under a system like yours, but shouldn't parents have more say?

[Queen_Herpes]

bold move, Colorado alters teacher tenure rules
By COLLEEN SLEVIN (AP) – 19 hours ago
DENVER — Colorado is changing the rules for how teachers earn and keep the sweeping job protections known as tenure, linking student performance to job security despite outcry from teacher unions that have steadfastly defended the system for decades.
Many education reform advocates consider tenure to be one of the biggest obstacles to improving America's schools because it makes removing mediocre or even incompetent teachers difficult.
Colorado's legislature changed tenure rules despite opposition from the state's largest teacher's union, a longtime ally of majority Democrats. Gov. Bill Ritter, also a Democrat, signed the bill into law last month.
It requires teachers to be evaluated annually, with at least half of their rating based on whether their students progressed during the school year. Beginning teachers will have to show they've boosted student achievement for three straight years to earn tenure.
Teachers could lose tenure if their students don't show progress for two consecutive years. Under the old system, teachers simply had to work for three years to gain tenure, the typical wait around the country.
After the bill survived a filibuster attempt and passed a key House vote, Democratic Rep. Nancy Todd, a 25-year teacher who opposed the measure, broke into tears.
"I don't question your motives," an emotional Todd said to the bill's proponents. "But I do want you to hear my heart because my heart is speaking for over 40,000 teachers in the state of Colorado who have been given the message that it is all up to them."

(Sorry, Player, meant to do that, but my feet were puppy attacked about the time I started!! Little rascal got some sharp teeth!)

Public education is so fucked. Nothing is going to make it right. I really don't think that punishing the teachers is the right way to go. What is you are a great teacher who gets handed the worst students? What if the person assigning the students to classrooms doesn't like you very much? Then they send you terrible students and your teacher rating goes down as a result?

The answer mentioned above is not the answer. I'm not sure why anyone would choose to become a teacher anymore, the pay sucks, they're not going to provide you with a reasonable expectation of job security, and not enough of the students, admin and community appreciate what you do. I think they should be giving pay raises to the teachers that survive this stupid process. Does anyone wonder why there are always more applicants for open firefighter positions than teaching positions? Oh yeah, tey cannot lose their jobs, either....well...now the teachers can lose their jobs. If the government is going to crack down on government jobs populated by individuals who perform poorly...start with the DMV, then head to the other governmental positions that really don't matter.

[Borderdawg]

bold move, Colorado alters teacher tenure rules
By COLLEEN SLEVIN (AP) – 19 hours ago
DENVER — Colorado is changing the rules for how teachers earn and keep the sweeping job protections known as tenure, linking student performance to job security despite outcry from teacher unions that have steadfastly defended the system for decades.
Many education reform advocates consider tenure to be one of the biggest obstacles to improving America's schools because it makes removing mediocre or even incompetent teachers difficult.
Colorado's legislature changed tenure rules despite opposition from the state's largest teacher's union, a longtime ally of majority Democrats. Gov. Bill Ritter, also a Democrat, signed the bill into law last month.
It requires teachers to be evaluated annually, with at least half of their rating based on whether their students progressed during the school year. Beginning teachers will have to show they've boosted student achievement for three straight years to earn tenure.
Teachers could lose tenure if their students don't show progress for two consecutive years. Under the old system, teachers simply had to work for three years to gain tenure, the typical wait around the country.
After the bill survived a filibuster attempt and passed a key House vote, Democratic Rep. Nancy Todd, a 25-year teacher who opposed the measure, broke into tears.
"I don't question your motives," an emotional Todd said to the bill's proponents. "But I do want you to hear my heart because my heart is speaking for over 40,000 teachers in the state of Colorado who have been given the message that it is all up to them."

(Sorry, Player, meant to do that, but my feet were puppy attacked about the time I started!! Little rascal got some sharp teeth!)

Public education is so fucked. Nothing is going to make it right. I really don't think that punishing the teachers is the right way to go. What is you are a great teacher who gets handed the worst students? What if the person assigning the students to classrooms doesn't like you very much? Then they send you terrible students and your teacher rating goes down as a result?

The answer mentioned above is not the answer. I'm not sure why anyone would choose to become a teacher anymore, the pay sucks, they're not going to provide you with a reasonable expectation of job security, and not enough of the students, admin and community appreciate what you do. I think they should be giving pay raises to the teachers that survive this stupid process. Does anyone wonder why there are always more applicants for open firefighter positions than teaching positions? Oh yeah, tey cannot lose their jobs, either....well...now the teachers can lose their jobs. If the government is going to crack down on government jobs populated by individuals who perform poorly...start with the DMV, then head to the other governmental positions that really don't matter.

DMV? Hell let's start with Congress! Or are they included in "other governmental positions that really don't matter"?

[Night Strike]

What do those of you who are educators think about it?

As a teacher, I find the concept of "tenure" to be insulting. By the same token, it's difficult to grade a teacher on student performance alone simply because it is far too easy for a teacher to rig the results...teaching the tests, etc.

It's really a tough situation to find a good answer for. In my opinion, what's required is for principals to have the authority over pay raises (and firings) and such, much as many middle managers have. Most school districts themselves, however, wouldn't be happy with that at all...and never mind the teacher unions.

What about parents? I am not convinced that giving a principal more power in this case is a good idea, because it seems that too often they are not really good managers at all. Maybe that would change under a system like yours, but shouldn't parents have more say?

The same parents who get enraged when their child doesn't automatically get an A and promoted to the next grade?

[Queen_Herpes]

What do those of you who are educators think about it?

As a teacher, I find the concept of "tenure" to be insulting. By the same token, it's difficult to grade a teacher on student performance alone simply because it is far too easy for a teacher to rig the results...teaching the tests, etc.

It's really a tough situation to find a good answer for. In my opinion, what's required is for principals to have the authority over pay raises (and firings) and such, much as many middle managers have. Most school districts themselves, however, wouldn't be happy with that at all...and never mind the teacher unions.

What about parents? I am not convinced that giving a principal more power in this case is a good idea, because it seems that too often they are not really good managers at all. Maybe that would change under a system like yours, but shouldn't parents have more say?

The same parents who get enraged when their child doesn't automatically get an A and promoted to the next grade?

LEts not foget what will happen to the GATE and honors teachers whose students are already at the peak of achievement and performance. What happens when their students simply maintain or slightly drop their achievement levels? And how is all of this measured? Standaradized tests? Like woodruff said, teachers can teach to the tests so that the students perform well...but then what is that achievement really measuring?

As I said earlier, the public school system is fucked and this Colorado law is NOT the answer.

[Woodruff]

What do those of you who are educators think about it?

As a teacher, I find the concept of "tenure" to be insulting. By the same token, it's difficult to grade a teacher on student performance alone simply because it is far too easy for a teacher to rig the results...teaching the tests, etc.

It's really a tough situation to find a good answer for. In my opinion, what's required is for principals to have the authority over pay raises (and firings) and such, much as many middle managers have. Most school districts themselves, however, wouldn't be happy with that at all...and never mind the teacher unions.

What about parents? I am not convinced that giving a principal more power in this case is a good idea, because it seems that too often they are not really good managers at all. Maybe that would change under a system like yours, but shouldn't parents have more say?

I would agree that giving parents "more say" would be a good thing. Given that their children are our primary output, it makes sense. But that would definitely have to be carefylly balanced, as well. A lot of parents are...hmmm...not as rational about their children as they could be when it comes to school, unfortunately. Certainly not close to the majority...but a healthy percentage.

You're right about many principals not being as good of managers as you would think they would be (I've been fortunate in that the two principals I've had have been very focused on teacher responsibility and taking action when it was warranted). I would LIKE to think that if the principal had this part of the control, rather than tenure being involved, that school districts would start hiring with an eye to that skill. As it is now, there's not much point in doing so, since principals sadly don't have much control over that sort of thing with the majority of their teachers.

[Woodruff]

Public education is so fucked. Nothing is going to make it right.

There are absolutely problems. But overcoming them is absolutely within reach, though I suspect as many do that a fundamental change in the process is probably necessary for that to happen.

I really don't think that punishing the teachers is the right way to go.

I'm not at all speaking of punishing teachers...I'm speaking of holding teachers accountable.

What is you are a great teacher who gets handed the worst students?

If you routinely get handed the worst students, then it's almost certainly a part of your job description (as in...that's what you're there for). Given that, it would certainly be taken into account in any reasonable process.

What if the person assigning the students to classrooms doesn't like you very much? Then they send you terrible students and your teacher rating goes down as a result?

That's not really possible. At least, not at the two schools I've taught in.

The answer mentioned above is not the answer. I'm not sure why anyone would choose to become a teacher anymore, the pay sucks, they're not going to provide you with a reasonable expectation of job security, and not enough of the students, admin and community appreciate what you do.

People teach for many reasons, but most of those reasons include the concept of love of something. Some just love kids. Some love making a difference. Some love the idea of education. Some love the challenge. Some love more than one of these things, and the really lucky ones love all of them.

Don't get me wrong...I DO very much appreciate what you're saying here. I certainly think that teacher pay should be better than it is (in general). But tenure really is a concept that just doesn't work very well AND I actually think that the idea of tenure is one of the reasons that teacher pay IS kept low.

[ViperOverLord]

1. Tenure is a good thing in that it protects teachers from predatorial administrators and demonic parents. However, I disagree with how it has deevolved in California. The teachers union had a shiz-fiz when we put a ballot initiative for it to be extended from 2 years to 3 years. They threw out all types wo is me ads rather than recognize that job security after two years is not at all the world we live in nor should it be.

Tenure was 10 years when I was a kid. Somewhere in the ballpark of 5 to 10 years is probably right.

2. As for connecting performance to tenure, I don't agree with that so much. Often, teachers are inheriting rough situations in which kids are not being disciplined at home. For their job to be tied to that would be a bit silly in my mind. However, it is possible that the education level has gotten so terrible that something like this needs to be done! I would be more in favor of a positive reinforcement system though where teachers earn bonuses for performance and not be possibly punished for things beyond their realistic control.

[Queen_Herpes]

Public education is so fucked. Nothing is going to make it right.

There are absolutely problems. But overcoming them is absolutely within reach, though I suspect as many do that a fundamental change in the process is probably necessary for that to happen.

I agree, my original statement was too overstated. Overcoming the problems is within reach, I feel however that this law is a step in the wrong direction becuase it lacks additional provisions for the teachers. It is simply punitive and potentially punitive and creates uncertainty for the good and great teachers out there.

I really don't think that punishing the teachers is the right way to go.

I'm not at all speaking of punishing teachers...I'm speaking of holding teachers accountable.

Holding teachers accountable is a good thing, but if the law does not provide incentives for going through a new process and rewards for teachers who perform exceptionally well, then the only goal of the law is to punish the underperformers and does nothing for the new stress created for the good and great teachers out there. The law simply creates uncertainty for teachers who shouldn't be worried, but likely will be concerned about keeping their jobs. The law also provides a loophole for districts to eliminate teachers who probably shouldn't be eliminated.

What is you are a great teacher who gets handed the worst students?

If you routinely get handed the worst students, then it's almost certainly a part of your job description (as in...that's what you're there for). Given that, it would certainly be taken into account in any reasonable process.

This doesn't appear to be a reasonable process. It seems like a logical process, but not one that a teacher could reason his or her way back into a job if fired because the students taught dropped 1 percentage point in "achievement." The article doesn't describe how much of a drop in achievement is necessary to describe the teacher as a "failure" and also doesn't discuss what measures are used to determine "achievement." I'm sure the law goes into great detail, but somehow I doubt the lawmakers were forward-thinking enough to put something into place that helps the process have validity.

In another post, I also wondered what would happen to the teacher who teaches Honors and AP courses. Typically, those are the highest achieving students. As the students are already at a high achivement level, what happens if their achievement level drops from the 99th percentile to the 95th percentile? That would be a notable drop in achievement, but I don't know too many people that would be crying about being in the top 5 percent of students. This however would represent a drop in achievement and if it happened over the course of two years, do you ditch the Honors and AP teacher? I would think you would be required (by precedent) to do so if you had previously dropped the 5th grade teacher whose students dropped from the 65th percentile to the 61st percentile.

What if the person assigning the students to classrooms doesn't like you very much? Then they send you terrible students and your teacher rating goes down as a result?

That's not really possible. At least, not at the two schools I've taught in.

I agree, not that likely. However, children are completely unpredictable. One student may be the picture of perfection in 2nd grade and then lose a parent, experience a divorce of parents, have a friend move away, or any other of a host of factors that could influence his/her mental attitude during the summer (or anytime of the year for that matter.) A third grade teacher could be handed a classroom filled with students who were affected by, I don't know, maybe "Columbine" (since it happened in Colorado) and their performance could likely be affected. I know its extreme, but whether extreme or not ANYTHING can influence the performance of students in the classroom. Kudos and tenure should be granted to the saints who perform this important task in our society for less pay than most public employees.

The answer mentioned above is not the answer. I'm not sure why anyone would choose to become a teacher anymore, the pay sucks, they're not going to provide you with a reasonable expectation of job security, and not enough of the students, admin and community appreciate what you do.

People teach for many reasons, but most of those reasons include the concept of love of something. Some just love kids. Some love making a difference. Some love the idea of education. Some love the challenge. Some love more than one of these things, and the really lucky ones love all of them.

Don't get me wrong...I DO very much appreciate what you're saying here. I certainly think that teacher pay should be better than it is (in general). But tenure really is a concept that just doesn't work very well AND I actually think that the idea of tenure is one of the reasons that teacher pay IS kept low.

Gone are the days of teachers who teach the same group of students from Kindergarden to the senior year of high school. I think there are probably some schools out there in small towns that have combined classrooms and some schools that have teachers move from year-to-year with the same students, but, the majority of teacher-student relationships last from one semester to one school year. (The only teacher I saw for more than one year was my high school German teacher because he was the only German teacher at the school.) Because each teacher is seeing a new crop of students every year, it cannot be assumed that the group of students arriving in will be teachable, have a good enough attitude, be reasonable free from outside influences that affect performance, and have parents who care enough to appropriately support their child's education.

If the government wants to make it easier to fire underperforming teachers, the government should also make it easier to fire underperforming principals, underperforming biologists working for state development projects, underperforming engineers working for the sewer district, and underperforming city financial planners and managers. Government and outsiders view school as measurable because standardized tests exist. How do you measure a biologist? Based on how many plants or creatures died under their jurisdiction? How do you measure the sewer district engineer? Based on failures of pumping stations or sinkholes that cause pipes to break? How do you measure the city financial planners and managers? Based on how much the general fund decreased due to market factors? In each of the mentioned examples, the biologist, engineer, financial planner and manager would balk at how unpredictable and uncontrollable those factors are. But what about the teacher? When given a child, isn't that child the most unpredictable and potentially uncontrollable of them all?

[jonesthecurl]

What do those of you who are educators think about it?

As a teacher, I find the concept of "tenure" to be insulting. By the same token, it's difficult to grade a teacher on student performance alone simply because it is far too easy for a teacher to rig the results...teaching the tests, etc.

It's really a tough situation to find a good answer for. In my opinion, what's required is for principals to have the authority over pay raises (and firings) and such, much as many middle managers have. Most school districts themselves, however, wouldn't be happy with that at all...and never mind the teacher unions.

What about parents? I am not convinced that giving a principal more power in this case is a good idea, because it seems that too often they are not really good managers at all. Maybe that would change under a system like yours, but shouldn't parents have more say?

The same parents who get enraged when their child doesn't automatically get an A and promoted to the next grade?

Or who'd throw out a teacher who taught evolution?

[Woodruff]

Gone are the days of teachers who teach the same group of students from Kindergarden to the senior year of high school. I think there are probably some schools out there in small towns that have combined classrooms and some schools that have teachers move from year-to-year with the same students, but, the majority of teacher-student relationships last from one semester to one school year. (The only teacher I saw for more than one year was my high school German teacher because he was the only German teacher at the school.)

Actually, I teach a four-year course that includes freshmen through seniors, so I do potentially see the same students four years in a row (presuming they stay with our program, of course, as it's an elective). However, I do recognize that I'm in an unusual situation in that regard.

Because each teacher is seeing a new crop of students every year, it cannot be assumed that the group of students arriving in will be teachable, have a good enough attitude, be reasonable free from outside influences that affect performance, and have parents who care enough to appropriately support their child's education.

You speak as if each grade-group of students is an entirely different beast from those past, and that's just not true. In fact, I would argue the opposite...as a group, every grade-group of students is going to be largely the same, at least in any large high school. It's simply the law of averages. Of course, there will be the individuals that change dramatically...but not the entire group.

If the government wants to make it easier to fire underperforming teachers, the government should also make it easier to fire underperforming principals, underperforming biologists working for state development projects, underperforming engineers working for the sewer district, and underperforming city financial planners and managers.

Shouldn't this be the case for all jobs? I think it should be...teachers certainly shouldn't be an exception to this.

Government and outsiders view school as measurable because standardized tests exist. How do you measure a biologist? Based on how many plants or creatures died under their jurisdiction? How do you measure the sewer district engineer? Based on failures of pumping stations or sinkholes that cause pipes to break? How do you measure the city financial planners and managers? Based on how much the general fund decreased due to market factors? In each of the mentioned examples, the biologist, engineer, financial planner and manager would balk at how unpredictable and uncontrollable those factors are. But what about the teacher? When given a child, isn't that child the most unpredictable and potentially uncontrollable of them all?

Well...not as far as standardized testing goes, no. A teacher absolutely has control over that aspect of things as far as a group of students goes.

I think teachers are looked at differently than the other positions you mention because everyone recognizes how important the job is, to be honest.

[Queen_Herpes]

I think teachers are looked at differently than the other positions you mention because everyone recognizes how important the job is, to be honest.

And I fully support making teachers accountable, however, the tenure was a benefit of the job. Take that away, and it should be replaced with a new benefit, not a hoop to jump through. All of the positions mentioned previously have starting salaries that are higher than a teacher's starting salary. Is the teacher's position "important?" Yes, pay them more than the biologist who had to learn to write reports from a teacher. Pay them more than the engineer who had to learn trigonimetry from a teacher, etc.

[Woodruff]

I think teachers are looked at differently than the other positions you mention because everyone recognizes how important the job is, to be honest.

And I fully support making teachers accountable, however, the tenure was a benefit of the job. Take that away, and it should be replaced with a new benefit, not a hoop to jump through. All of the positions mentioned previously have starting salaries that are higher than a teacher's starting salary. Is the teacher's position "important?" Yes, pay them more than the biologist who had to learn to write reports from a teacher. Pay them more than the engineer who had to learn trigonimetry from a teacher, etc.

I believe I did mention that I'm convinced that one of the primary reasons why teacher pay is generally so low is directly attributable to tenure. I'm certain that if tenure were not in place, teachers would make significantly more pay, if for no other reason than teachers would find themselves also being more mobile than they are with tenure. I'm convinced that tenure is a negative all-around for GOOD teachers.

[bedub1]

I believe tenure should be abolished. It is designed to protect the union/teacher and punish the school/students.

[Woodruff]

I believe tenure should be abolished. It is designed to protect the union/teacher and punish the school/students.

I don't believe it's designed at all to "punish" the school or the students, no. But I do agree that it is designed to protect the teacher.

[Night Strike]

I believe tenure should be abolished. It is designed to protect the union/teacher and punish the school/students.

I don't believe it's designed at all to "punish" the school or the students, no. But I do agree that it is designed to protect the teacher.

Elementary and Secondary teachers are supposed to be teaching the basics (defined as intro-type/broad knowledge courses as opposed to in-depth/highly-critical courses) while Collegiate professors teach the specialized and sometimes controversial classes. It's those collegiate professors who should have the benefit of having tenure to have more freedom in teaching controversies without automatically getting fired for having a different view. Because non-collegiate teachers do not teach these things (and most often if they do, they're wrongly pushing their views/ideology on their students), they should not have the right to tenure, especially after such a short time of teaching. Give them protection from no-fault firings and pay raises after several years just like any other professional, but not tenure.

In other news, FIRE or at least suspend teachers without pay who are awaiting trials about sexual-abuse cases instead of paying them the 6-figure incomes that some are receiving in California and New York.