“A principal's comment shared on Ravitch's blog:
"He said that we must remember that one has a moral obligation not to terminate someone's livelihood and career without long and hard deliberation; to do so, he said, required taking responsibility for ruining someone's life. We talked about the "reformers" who are almost gleeful in their zeal to fire teachers. He thought that they failed to recognize the moral dimensions of leadership."
later in the blog post:
"One of my fellow panelists was John Jackson of the Schott Foundation for Public Education. He said that he had recently visited some high-performing nations, and at each stop he would ask someone from the ministry of education: "What do you do about bad teachers?" The answer invariably was, "We help them." And he asked, "What if you help them and they are still bad teachers?" And the response was, "We help them more."”
First: When did firing an incompetent employee become equivalent to “ruining someone’s life”!!! Give me a break. It’s a job, and there are plenty of other jobs out there for qualified hard working personnel. In fact, throwing someone out of the nest that does not fit their skills, personality and capabilities may be the kindest thing you can do for them.
Imagine that 20 yr veteran Teacher that has not improved their knowledge and capabilities adequately, or has become so burnt out that coming to work drains them. Yet they keep coming because the misery they know is better than taking the risk of attaining something better. Who is succeeding or happy in this situation? The Teacher’s students, peers and mgmt are burdened by them, and the Teacher is stressed and bitter…
Second: According to the second paragraph, the author seems to think that anyone given enough training can be a very good Teacher, which I whole heartedly DISAGREE with. That’s like saying that anyone given enough training could be a good Surgeon, Quarterback or Engineer. This implies that Environment can overcome the power of Genetics, which off course is silly… Or it implies that Teaching is so simple that ANYONE can excel at it, which is silly…
I do agree that improvement efforts should be taken to help good Teachers that have slipped in their capability or attitude, however the turn around had better happen within a couple months. Not a few years… Can you imagine nurturing and protecting for years a Surgeon that was harming all of their patients? Probably not… Yet you would nurture and protect a Teacher that is harming their students through incompetency or laziness…
As always, I think Teachers have a very vested interest in getting their poor performing peers fired as soon as possible. These individuals are their passing work and poorly prepared students on to their capable peers. Also, they damage the Professional standing of all Teachers by still being allowed to Practice their Profession. How respected would Doctors be if they protected the poor performers and allowed them to keep treating patients?
My only guess is that Union pressure, empathy and a fear that they may be that poor of a performer someday are keeping them from doing what is right for the Students and their Professional standing. And if they choose to not self regulate High Professional Stds and Performance, then the customers/citizens will….
Thoughts?
6 comments:
It's worth noting that many nations with high performing schools recruit the cream of the crop from their universities to be teachers. They probably are less likely to fire and more likely to invest because the teacher has already been recruited, vetted, and because they know the talent is present.
I don't think anyone can be a teacher--far from it. But I think when you have identified and hired a high achieving, motivated, top-of-their-class trainee, you're willing to mentor and invest in their success.
When goes back to my fantasy where I wish teaching were a higher prestige career where the top 25% of any given graduating class were better represented. How do we get that to happen?
--Annie
John,
I made a comment with those quotes mainly to provoke a reaction. I actually agree with most of what you wrote.
However, schools can be too quick to fire a teacher. I worked in one charter school who got rid of one young woman within the first six weeks. This may have ended her teaching career, given the surplus of elementary school teachers. I felt bad for her given the time and $ she put into getting her teaching degree. I assume she had a successful student or other teaching experience prior or she wouldn't have been hired. I was happy to read recently that the director of this particular charter school has been fired by the school board. I think due in large part to her personnel management practices.
One other note about the Ravitch blog post: if you read the whole thing, it is mainly about school closings and the mass firing of teachers. Getting rid of half the staff is one of four turnaround options under NCLB sanctions. There is in general too much bashing and blaming of teachers for shortfalls in student achievement.
Lately, I remain curious about the Teach for America model. They continue to refine a selection process to pick who is likely to be most successful teaching in challenging school settings. They draw from a pool of very top students from which more than half stay in teaching after their two years are completed. Learning on the job with support makes a certain amount of sense. Those for whom it is not a good fit have a non teaching degree to fall back on (as I have advised my niece.)
As the article about SPPS noted, it is more difficult and perhaps unfair to fire a teacher mid or late in their career, when they have not been evaluated for years or trained in areas of deficiency. I think schools should follow SPPS lead and take steps to ease the transition. I know a teacher who would be happy to take a job at two thirds of his current for a chance to get out of the classroom, but in this economy and only teaching on his resume such a job is unlikely.
Schools too quick to fire a teacher? Please! They barely fire anybody.
Annie,
That's going to be hard. Citizen's being too cheap to pay really well, Unions protecting the deficient and Unions paying for time served instead of capability.
A friends Mom tried to get back in the rural Wisc school after quitting for awhile when the Kids were young. She couldn't get a job because of the whole Tenure and Time Served mess. They simply could not evaluate her credentials and capability, and offer an appropriate salary. Talking about silly and disfunctional.
Laurie,
You are welcome... I hope I gave you a good enough reaction.
I agree that getting rid of bad Mgrs is at least as important as getting rid of bad Teachers. They can really screw up an organization.
Speed,
I always enjoy reading the RAS HR notices to see who is being hired or let go... For awhile I thought they were doing a good job of cleaning house because they were getting rid of some of those Teachers that were on "Probation". Then I found out that "Probation" just meant not yet "Tenured", and was disappointed.
I agree the turnover in the Tenured ranks must be near ZERO.
John,
I had expected a sort of knee jerk reaction, but instead got a well written response that made some good points. I have come to believe a good leader/principal is by far the most important factor in improving schools and student achievement, especially if they have some fexibility in budget and staffing to recruit and develop top notch teachers. I think my thinking on this has changed the most since I started reading your blog (and some books like the one from the Teach for America founder)
Supt. Sicoli has replaced some underperformers at the ESC, maybe one left IMHO.
Post a Comment