The first half of the year has witnessed an increased focus on teacher tenure, as government agencies at the local, state, and federal level have begun to implement widespread policy changes. We’ve even seen this discussion raised amongst our students here on this blog (see our Teacher Tenure blog post). Prompted in part by funds attached to recent federal programs such as President Obama’s Race to the Top initiative, changes in tenure policy could drastically alter the way schools and teachers are evaluated and compensated.
An Overview of Teacher Tenure Today
As it stands, most schools reward teachers with tenure after three years in a full-time teaching position. When schools need to lay-off teachers, firings are done according to seniority. Often, the only other official differentiation between teachers is derived from the completion of degree programs and standardized tests, which often reward teachers with improved salary schedules. Critics argue that determining compensation and tenure based on seniority and qualifying factors, rather than on performance, sets up teachers to gradually slack off, and causes schools to waste money on undeserving teachers. Proponents of the status quo point to difficulties inherent in determining teacher performance; in the past studies have suggested that rating teachers based on students’ test scores and grades leads to counterproductive cheating and excessive grade inflation.
Recent Changes to Teacher Tenure Policies Around the Nation
Recently, the Colorado state legislature changed state-wide tenure rules for teachers, linking tenure eligibility with student performance. Teachers in Washington D.C. will face a slightly different rating system, as the Washington Teachers’ Union approved an opt-in performance-based salary schedule. Additionally, schools in Washington in need of budget cutbacks will now base decisions on which teachers to keep on performance, rather than seniority. Both Colorado and Washington’s teacher rating systems are based on a combination of student performance and classroom observations.
Meanwhile, Chicago’s legislature has taken a more measured approach, as results from its first-year pilot teacher evaluation program have provided valuable data for future evaluations. The pilot program designated roughly a third of Chicago teachers as “proficient” or “distinguished”, with 8% of teachers receiving an “unsatisfactory” rating.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post recently published two articles proposing alternative routes to improving nationwide systems of teacher compensation. George Wood, principal of Federal Hocking High School in Stewart, Ohio argues that recent reform efforts are destined to fail. According to Wood, “Tying teacher pay and tenure to scores on the current batch of narrowly constructed tests has never worked and will not work now.” Instead, Wood advocates a reform policy grounded in common sense; the answer to current failures in the school system, Wood asserts is a firm commitment to professional development. As Wood explains, “At our school we rely on weekly if not daily staff development activities, school wide learning strategies, and staff evaluation focused on improving instruction and cultivating the leadership skills of teachers to help and coach their colleagues. There is no incentive linking pay to performance or threats of termination; rather we rely on collaboration and the collective wisdom of the teaching staff to improve student achievement.” Wood suggests that the root of the problem lies in a disconnect between policymakers and those “who work with kids at the school level.” The challenge would then be to establish standards for professional development that could be applied and evaluated effectively nationwide – no small task.
Taking a slightly different approach, Michelle Kerr, a Stanford teacher program graduate who taught geometry, algebra, and humanities in California, advocates the adoption of teacher evaluations based on student performance, but only under specific conditions. Kerr’s demands are that students with poor attendance records be excluded from teacher evaluations, that teachers be allowed to remove disruptive students from class on a daily basis, that schools adopt stricter guidelines for allowing students to progress to the next grade, and that evaluations be based on student improvement, rather than simply student performance.
What’s your take?
While the outcome of the various policy proposals may not be clear for quite some time, members of the education community can at the very least find some happiness in the increased focus surrounding teacher compensation and tenure, which promises to bring new ideas to an old – and at times stagnant – discussion. What are you thoughts on teacher tenure? Share them in the comments below!
