Table of Contents
The fact that the teacher tenure offers an assurance of lifetime employment remains a myth. Nevertheless, tenure is not only agreed union treaties to ceremonial due process but also a legal pledge set by the country. This process gives a hearing for usually acknowledged reasons for termination, for instance, insubordination, immorality and incompetency and guarantees there is also presentation of a notice. Economic job guarantee is the tenure’s main goal, tied to the then uncompetitive salary compared to other careers. However, tenure is not a lifetime assurance. Although teacher tenure still holds value in the educational system, it is without modifications or removal. This discussion provides and Argumentative analysis including proposition and opposition on teacher tenure.
According to Heard, tenure acts as a job security for teachers who have effectively finished their probationary time. Protecting experienced teachers from random nonrenewal of contract for grounds not connected to the educational process is the tenure’s main goal. These include personality differences with managers or school administrations, individual beliefs, and the like (4). Depending on contracts with teachers' unions, the quantity and type of protection may differ from nation to nation and may even differ from school locality to school locality. Generally, a teacher is threatened with nonrenewal of agreement or the sack for reason namely, failure to uphold some obviously defined criterion that fulfills an educational use, he/she is entitled to due process (5). Strauss suggests that tenure does not certainly imply terminating a poorly working teacher through an expensive and difficult process. It can be an effective process, which would balance between a teacher’s personal rights and the school administration’s institutional accountability. The wish of the community at the nation legislative and local contractual level determines the degree of the procedural process that is “due”. It may be just a one- or two-night board hearing with timely fair review and sensible written notice of the allegations (5).
The tenure practice started in 1920s, in California, during the period of the Scopes Monkey Trial and the battle over evolution. Tenure was then, a natural way of giving the much-needed job security in an unclear academic atmosphere. Since the expansion of free speech rights to guard the right of instructors to argue on contentious subjects in the classroom, the challenge is not the way to protect school workers from country’s politics but to shield the country’s politics from school workers (Schwab, 3). Greenblatt claims that the initiation of tenure was to shield teachers who in the past days, were regularly sacked for causes that had were not related to their job, including race, concurred with World War I and the suffragist movement (9). Principles fired teachers when the principal intended to offer jobs to his allies, if a teacher became expectant, or when a new political group came to power in the vicinity (10). Moreover, tenure predates consequent labor laws that protect against isolation or other employer exploitations (12).
Opposition of teacher tenure
Heard indicates that where a teacher is in their profession lifecycle does not count for they will be dealing with the concerns of removal of teacher tenure and more precise teacher assessment. One component of teacher assessment concentrates on whether learners are showing academic benefits. The way of assessing student accomplishment is the point of argument that may bring about misunderstanding between the assessor and the teacher (13). In addition, teachers have not had the chance to prove their significance, or their incompetence since most nations gives tenure after three years (ProCon.org, 29). Rose feels that because rules are almost no longer relevant to any teacher who alleges tenure, teachers have the freedom to do as they wish. These teachers do as they wish for there is no one they are accountable to and there exists no laws (3). Consequently, this means that there is no fair evaluation of the teachers.
Because tenure entails months of legal battling by the school administration, the courts, the head teacher and the union, the process makes it hard to do away with underperforming teachers. For instance in Michigan, it can take up to 335 days to do away with a tenured teacher before the courts join in (ProCon.org, 4). Moreover, tenure makes it expensive to do away with a teacher with poor performance or who is accountable of illegal behavior. In New York City, it costs approximately $250,000 to sack a tenured teacher. For example, the city spent approximately $3 million yearly paying tenured teachers charged with ineffectiveness and misconduct to stay in rubber rooms (ProCon.org, 6). According to Stephen, tenure unconsciously defends the firing of ineffectual teachers. The Teach for America alumna, who administers some 5,000 teachers and 50,000 students, has sparkled disagreement in the capital by advocating for a new contract that would allow teachers to receive as much as $130,000 yearly if they relinquish their tenure rights (2).
James argues that, sometimes it is very possible to fire a tenured teacher although this procedure is very hard and burdensome. This causes many parents to conclude that supervisors would rather preserve ineffectual teachers than run through the time and exertion engrossed in a dismissal hearing (5). In most states, until completion of charges and months of assessments, hearings and petitions have transpired, discharge of a tenured teacher cannot occur. The reason why the system is purposely dawdling and burdensome is to discourage school boards and parents from firing a teacher for private or political reasons (ProCon.org, 3). Stephen states that every state contains its own experiences. A Connecticut teacher got a sheer 30-day deferral for assisting students cheat on a regulated examination. A California school board used $8,000 to dismiss a trainer who chose using R-rated movies rather than books. In yet another case, a Florida teacher continued being a teacher for a whole year in spite of occurrences in which she hurled books at her students and insisted that they called her a weird name (4).
Some teachers allege that tenure is a scapegoat for academic and economic turmoil that has led to the miserable test scores and unsatisfactory graduation rates in U.S. schools. Eliminating tenure does not tackle problems of congestion, enhancing students' home atmospheres or underfunding. Furthermore, even with a long period of social development, the need to guard teachers from the notions of the society remains as significant as ever. This is particularly in science classes where the conflict over developmental biology and creationism rages on (Stephen, 9). Another assertion is that teacher tenure generates complacency since teachers discern that they are not likely to lose their jobs. Moreover, tenure eliminates motivations for teachers to install more effort and concentrate on enhancing their teaching (ProCon.org, 8). This means that although teacher tenure might profit some teachers, it does nothing to support the learning of students. Michelle Rhee, former DC Schools Chancellor said that tenure represents the hallowed grail of teacher associations, but it lacks educational worth for children and only profits adults (27).
Teacher tenure renders development of education harder, according to school board presidents. For instance, in a study of October 2006, 91% of school board chairs either approved or powerfully agreed that tenure obstructs the firing of incompetent teachers. Moreover, 60 % also alleged that tenure does not endorse just assessments (ProCon.org, 18). On the other hand, proponents of the present tenure system frequently mention job security as a strategy for making teachers focus on their student’s attention. They allege that when teachers concentrate on the security of their jobs, education for students suffers. Such judgment disregards the implausible efficiency of the private sector, which do not have such protections (Schwab, 7).
Just as the same way it is hard to dismiss a tenured professor, it is also very difficult to become one. The probationary time is seven years on average at four-year colleges and three years for community colleges. This is a phase of job uncertainty almost exclusive among U.S. occupations. Ultimately, employees denied tenure towards the end of this period loses their jobs (NEA, 5). The most negative consequent of this system is that during the probationary time, roughly all colleges can decide not to restore faculty contracts and end faculty with no any basis or cause. Moreover, all through this period, supervisors and senior professors assess the work of fresh faculty-teaching, service and research prior to choosing whether to advocate tenure (6).
Teacher tenure makes it difficult for districts to be financially flexible and necessitates schools to make lasting expenditure commitments. Generally, teacher job agreements lack stipulations for dilapidated staffing and economic mayhem (ProCon.org, 33). Deborah Wadsworth, public Agenda President argues that teacher tenure causes a circulation of talent that is faulted and unbalanced. This is because senior teachers will prefer to teach less difficult and more reserve-rich people rather than the classrooms that would profit the most from knowledgeable teachers (34).
>The most heartbreaking effect of teacher tenure is the lopsided harm imposed upon the children of the least advantaged. Parents vigorous in their local schools will advocate for the elimination of ineffectual teachers from their children’s classrooms. Conversely, administrators transfer these teachers instead of firing them since tenure offers an insuperable impediment to firing. Ultimately, they move them to schools in low-income regions, frequently inhabited by settler families. In these schools, they are very certain that parents are less probably to be speaking concerning their discontent with teachers. Consequently, this results to a situation which renders those who require quality education be the least likely to get it (Schwab, 5).
The tenure system can also be very inflexible. For example, it is hard for faculty to take a break in the three to seven year tenure period to take care of young kids. Newly enrolled women and minority faculty at times feel strained to work on several college committees, only to find that their committee work does not have any worth during tenure period. Higher education associations in several campuses are advocating placing more importance on teaching and improving tenure processes (NEA, 30).
Proposition of teacher tenure
Tenure protects the firing of teachers due to political, individual, or other non-job related motives. Prior to the development of tenure, firing of teachers could occur when a principal endeavored to make room to employ his friends or when a new political party rose to power. Principles and boards fired women for being expectant, getting married, being out very late in the evenings or even having pants (ProCon.org, 1). In addition, tenure assures teachers’ arbitration and suitable procedure if administrators endeavor to dismiss them. Owing to this, discharges classically necessitate legal proceedings approximately two years in extent and $200,000 in cost. If the teacher petitions the ruling, the figures would augment. This is because teacher associations take many initiatives to guard their members (Schwab, 2).
Academic liberty is significant, as society requires secure places where students and scholars can confront the conservative wisdom of academic autonomy. This reinforces society but is not a menace. It puts initiatives to the test and trains learners to reflect and protect their notions (NEA, 16). Tenure offers faculty the sovereignty to confront the management on matters of new programs and quality and to protest concerning upsetting issues (17). Moreover, tenure means that a university or college is not in a position to dismiss a tenured professor devoid of presenting proof that the school is in grave fiscal problems or that the professor is ineffectual or acts incompetently (4).
Tenure also aids teachers to push for measures in support of students and differ explicitly with school and district managers (ProCon.org, 17). Moreover, tenure prevents administrators from firing teachers precipitately after a parent warns of costly lawful action against the district or after a student creates a fake allegation. Following an allegation, districts may find it convenient to get rid of a teacher speedily rather than investigating the issue and incurring possible costly legal costs (14).
The teachers should work as every other employee in the public and private sector. For instance, when workers are not performing, firms do not maintain them just because they have tenure. On the contrary, administrators cannot fire teachers in tenure easily even if they are actually underperforming or they are incompetent. When teachers realize this, they do as they wish, eventually leading to misconduct and underperformance as long as they have ample protection. This compromises the quality of education effecting in incompetent students and poor grades. This assertion indicates that tenure concentrates on protecting the job of the teacher rather than performance in the schools. In addition to this, principals and other administrators cannot make them mend any mistakes, or if they do, it is tremendously a hard task.
Although countless teachers in this nation are good, there are also numerous bad ones. Additionally, if the bad ones obtains tenure, the poor teaching they offer, reflects on the student's capability to learn. There should be easy firing of bad teachers with tenure as done to other teachers who do not have tenure. Moreover, inclination in schools over teachers ought not to be there, rather there ought to be similar level of dedication and indulgent for all the teachers. Although tenure should remain, there should be regulations in the part of firing the teachers and evaluating the competency of the teachers.