Big-city district tells teachers: give up tenure, we’ll double your pay — lessons here?
November 24th, 2008 at 10:36 pm by Tony Tagliavia under News
The relatively new superintendent of the public school system in the nation’s capital has made a radical offer to teachers: give up tenure and I’ll double your pay.
Her basic premise? Tenure protects bad teachers by making it more difficult for districts to fire them.
Washington Superintendent Michelle Rhee’s plan isn’t brand new. It has been featured in Newsweek. I caught a report on it yesterday on ABC World News Sunday and this morning, Rhee’s ideas were featured in the Grand Rapids Press, which just published a series on tenure issues in West Michigan.
Here are some of the details from Newsweek:
“Current teachers would actually have a choice. If they are willing to go on “probation” for a year—giving up their job security—and can successfully prove their talent, they can earn more than $100,000 a year and as much as $130,000, a huge salary for a teacher, after five years. If not, they still get a generous 28 percent raise over five years and keep their tenure. (All new teachers must sign up for the first option and go on probation for four years.) Rhee predicts that about half the teachers will choose to take their chances on accountability for higher pay, and that within five years the rest will follow, giving up tenure for the shot at merit pay hikes.”
ABC reports that Rhee thought she’d be seen as a hero but instead the idea “triggered a major labor dispute and stalled contract negotiations with the teachers’ union.” Union leaders have told reporters tenure is critical to protect teachers from being fired for no reason.
Money is of course an issue — Newsweek says Rhee is “tapping” Mayor Adrian Fenty and private philanthropists.
Is this a good idea? Could it work here?
Curious to hear your thoughts.
Tony
Tags: abc news, D.C., education, grand rapids press, Michelle Rhee, Michigan, newsweek, public schools, Schools, teacher tenure, teachers, tenure, Washington
The only thing that checks administrators from abusing their power is a unionized, tenured faculty. In most cases, administration/teacher disputes involve teachers serving as advocates for students — and teachers need tenure in order to serve as advocates.
Teacher quality is certainly an issue, but as long as our society devalues the profession, then the best and the brightest will only teach if they feel a strong calling. The best way to “solve” the problem of teacher quality is to allow teachers to maintain their tenure, but to also pay them a decent salary.
Finally, it is up to parents to value education and to encourage their children to do the same. There are many problems in the public school system, but the majority of those problems are disciplinary in nature. It is difficult for teacher to do his/her job effectively when students are disinterested, tired from staying up too late, or willfully disobedient. Teachers also need tenure to defend themselves against misguided students and parents, as well.
Schools need to do something different. Unions were very useful in their day but what has happened in the automotive industry could be happening in the teaching industry. What is the purpose of tenure? To protect teachers from the evil administration? Bottom line is that administrators should be allowed to administrate. Their hands are tied when it comes to under-performing or burned out teachers who have tenure. Why would an administrator want to get rid of a good teacher, why would the administration allow a parent or child to ruin a good teachers career. Anytime workers are not held accountable for their performance on a regular interval their performance will depreciate.
I agree that some teachers do not deserve tenure, but the majority are hard-working people attempting to do a job in the face of mounting government and social pressures. Many of the financial problems that school districts are facing today are a result of administrators who are intoxicated with their own power. They have become like the politicians who have forgotten that they serve the people and not the other way around. As with industry, every time a new “flavor of the week” comes out in education it has to be incorporated into the “mission statement”.
Unfortunately big-city school districts have adopted the same business strategy and focus as any big-business, service industry, retail business anywhere in America today: It’s all about saving dollars, it’s all about the bottom line. Administrators would be delighted to have teachers accept this proposal. A previous poster asks “why would admin get rid of a good teacher?” To save money, that’s why. Our local GRPS district for example had an enormous exodus of veteran teachers in the past two years under the Early Retirement Incentive offered by the district. For all the teachers at the top of the pay-scale who retired, the district had the opportunity to hire new teachers straight out of college at a 2 for 1 discount. Why is this savings never mentioned in any of the budget discussions? Folks need to take a look at the details of their local districts and assess quality and spending with their own eyes. Find out what the student to teacher ratio is at your district. How current are the textbooks being used in the classroom? What kind of spending is being made in the classroom on current technology, materials, texts and supplies in the classroom. Why administration would find it acceptable to diminish the quality of instruction with a 38 or 40 student to teacher ratio in the classroom is beyond me. What kind of budget is available for the adoption of new textbooks in all subject areas? Does it make sense to forsake the quality of instruction to save money by using old, worn, defaced textbooks that are over a decade and a half old? Does anyone take the time to look back at the finance and budgeting of a large city school district here to see if this has not been the case over the past two decades, even when the finances were in the black ( a state of surplus)? Yet districts such as GRPS still find it feasible and appropriate to payroll a media consultant spin-doctor to the tune of a six-digit salary; to payroll a superintendent to the tune of a quarter- million per year in salary and perks for a 5 year contract whether AYP is met or student scores increase or not (they haven’t). To use the business analogy, this kind of elitism reminds me of the CEOs of the big-three and the banks making enormous salaries and bonuses as compensation for doing nothing more than seeing to the demise of their organizations. It’s time the community focuses on the details that that lead into what should be the main focus of public schools which is quality instruction which comes as a result of a quality learning environment, quality of instructional materials, and yes, a quality staff. More important to this discussion is the need for quality leadership in a large district. As long as leadership has a focus upon “the bottom line” instead of investing in a quality product and process, our large city schools will continue to languish. With good policy and leadership, the most important proponent of change in a system are the teachers. When the leadership of a district has no working relationship with its own teachers, and chooses to “rule” tenured teachers through intimidation, fear, and threats, then the system as a whole will suffer. The biggest losers are the students, whom of course should be the entire focus of the whole process. I ask you this: If tenured teachers now have no voice in the process, then how will taking that tenure away improve the empowerment of our educators? What we have now are bureaucrats and politicians making top-down decisions regarding what should work in the classroom. It is a totalitarian model and it is un-American. If you don’t believe this is happening I invite you to ask any teacher in your local large urban district to report how much input of the process they have. How often do you ever see teachers speak at the board of education meetings? Do you really think it is because they don’t care, or is it due to a gag-order sent in writing to the staff prohibiting any public statements regarding the conditions in the schools? When educators have to take to the sidewalks to speak-out in the cold and dark on situations regarding the classroom, then you know things have become really, really bad in that organization. In the modern day of education should we regard our teachers as the educated certified professionals they are, with some sense of empowerment, or are they, as one dear superintendent notoriously alluded to…. should we consider our professional educators as “auto-workers”?
If administrators were all fair and unbiased tenure would not be needed. I have seen teachers badly mistreated by principals who just didn’t like the person. One felt a need to target one teacher each year. This principal was held up as a great example of a principal and was used by the district to mentor other principals. Her activities cost the districts thousands of dollars when the abused teachers negotiated an early retirement package from the district in exchange for not taking them to court over the treatment they received. I have seen principals strongly support bad teachers whom they felt they had some special control over. One of them attacked six teachers in six years, including some who produced much better test scores than the previous year’s “good” teacher with the same students. Some principals just can’t handle the promotion without becoming a power-hungry person.
On the other hand, I know a first year principal who convinced an incompetent teacher, who had bounced around the district for over a decade, that she didn’t belong in a classroom. Months later she was thrilled with her life out of school. He did this without mistreatment or a tenure hearing or any expense to the district. He was then put in the position of interim superintendent but not given the job. He’s now the superintendent of a neighboring district.
To whom do the administrators answer? In larger districts the board surely doesn’t know what goes on and the cronism among administrators can continue.
I think it’s time for a new system…I’m sorry but tenure has a bad taste in my mouth…I had a teacher with tenure in my high school…she hated boy’s…..It was common for all the boys to drop her class…I had to have her for American Lit….what a mistake…two of my buddies took it too…they both were 4.0 students…one got a c+ the other a c- and I managed to get a D+ (my parents were so proud I made it out of there)….the lowest girl was a b-…….parent’s and administration could not get her to change her ways or out of the program…also the closed files of teacher misbehavior has to be stopped, how many teachers leave one school district, if their files are void/closed from the issue of dismissal, only to be hired at the next one which have no clue???? the Legal protection offered teachers by the union go beyond the call of duty….the District can’t afford to push any further so they wash their hands of the teacher give a good letter of recommendation and save some money, teacher’s union looks clean, but the next district gets a bad egg…….if the administration and the teacher’s union are for “the better education of the children” why do they allow this to occur????
The problems with schools today are the faults of many different groups. From some parents who never show any interest in their childrens schooling, to some teachers who do just the minimum on a daily basis, showing no real interest in whether or not the kids are actually picking up anything in their classes, to some administrators who are power hungry, bean counters, or just looking for a promotion for themselves. But another aspect left out far too often is the lack of funding from the state. While our state employees get paid more and more, with greater benefits, the revenue going to schools and communities seems to keep lagging further and further behind. It makes it hard for the good administrators to pay their good teachers what they deserve.
But as someone who has many teachers in his family, and hears the constant complaining about pay, these same teachers have to remember: Most of us would kill to have their benefit package. With the amount my wife and I have to spend to have health care, and STILL have high deductibles and co-insurance fees, I find it annoying when a teachers complains when someone suggests they may be able to be paid more if they had to contribute something towards health care costs. In the end, with the amount teachers get paid (If they get their masters degrees) added to their amazing health care plan, I’m sorry if I don’t feel sympathy for them. They choose this career, knowing the pay scale, and should be expected to shoulder their share as much as the rest of us.
Unfortunately, problems with schools can’t be solved by simply “throwing money at them”. All districts have wonderful teachers who are trying as much as possible to educate. Many districts also have teachers that fall into the old stereotype of “those that can, do and those that can’t, teach”. Solutions? More parental involvement with the school systems. Attend your school board meetings and join the PTO/PTA. When parents get involved, it is beneficial for all students.
I am veteran teacher from Houston seeking a dialogue with current and past Teach for America teachers regarding a pattern of TFA leaders and alumni in leadership positions promoting conservative ideas and profiting from close relationships with reactionary corporations while presumptuously claiming to be the new civil rights movement. I first became aware of this when a former local TFA Director, now a school board member, recently proposed to fire teachers based on test scores and opposed allowing us to vote to have a single union.
The conservative-TFA nexus began when Union Carbide sponsored Wendy Kopp’s initial efforts to create Teach for America. Union Carbide’s negligence had caused the worst industrial accident in history, in Bhopal, India. The number of casualties was as large as 100,000, and Union Carbide did everything possible to minimize taking responsibility.
Ms. Kopp wrote in her book she nearly went to work for the Edison Project, and was all but saved in financial hard times by their managerial assistance. The Edison Project, founded by a Tennessee entrepreneur, was an effort to replace public schools run by elected school boards with for-profit, corporate-run schools. Her husband, Richard Barth, was an Edison executive before taking over at KIPP Foundation.
In 2000, two brilliant TFA alumni, the founders of KIPP Academy, then joined the Bush’s at the Republican National Convention in 2000. This was pivotal for Bush, since as Governor he did not have any genuine education achievements. These charter schools do great service, but they start with families that are committed to education. They claim they are improving public schools by offering competition in the market-place, but they take the best and leave the rest. What sort of competition is that?
Superintendent Michelle Rhee’s prescription for improving D.C. schools: close them rather than improve them—and fire teachers rather than inspire them.
TFA teachers do great work. But better schools are only part of the solution. Stable families are more able to be ambitious for their children than insecure, overworked and struggling ones. We need national health care, a stronger union movement, long-term unemployment benefits, generous college funding, immigration reform, trade policy, freedom for alternative lifestyles and reductions in military spending. Specifically, we need to enlarge the middle class by any means necessary.
Our society has failed our schools by permitting the middle class to shrink. It’s not the other way around. Economic inequality and insecurity fosters the achievement gap. Its not the other way around. Blaming teachers, public schools and our unions feeds corporate ideology and their power. Corporate domination of politics, and the weakness of counter-balancing forces like unions, are the obstacles to progressive change.
Ms. Kopp claims to be in the tradition of the civil rights movement, but Martin Luther King would take principled positions—against the Vietnam War and for the Poor Peoples March—even when it pissed off powerful people. His final speech was for striking sanitation workers. His last book argued for modifying American capitalism to include some measure of wealth distribution. I would like a dialogue about what I have written here. My e-mail is JesseAlred@yahoo.com. You as an individual TFA teacher has a responsibility here because your work gives TFA leaders credibility. Its not the other way around.