NationStates Jolt Archive

On one hand, teacher tenure ensures guaranteed job security for a badly-needed profession. Teachers cannot be fired for openly disagreeing with authorities or popular opinion. It's also argued that teachers can produce better results when they are not worried about their financial future.

On the other hand, there are some really, really bad teachers who only "teach" so they can keep getting paid. The Revocation process to fire bad teachers is so drawn-out and difficult it is very discouraging, and practically the only times it does work is if the teacher was sexually involved with a student.

So, do you support Teacher Tenure?

Teacher tenure is bad. Bad because it 95% of the time protects terrible teachers from being removed from their position no matter what they do. The rest of the time, it prevents new, better teachers from getting positions because getting tenure is the only guarantee to employment, and you can lose your job at any time.

I want to put the two words together to get something meaning "sometimes good, sometimes bad" but it's not working

in no way do i support the idea of tenure. it's a left-over from the stone age. good teacher don't need it, and bad teachers shouldn't get it. i've heard so many horror stories. i'm going to college and am into the medical area of study.. pretty important, wouldn't you say. well there's a particular teacher who's known as knowing far, far less than the students.. but they have tenure and can't be fired. it's really disturbing! :mad:

Tenure insures that the "good ol' boys" club will remain an institution in our institutions. You'll only get tenure if you're friends with those who have it. It's already ruled any sort of intelectual fairness in the American university system.

I never had a problem with teacher tenure until I filed several sexual harrassment complaints against a teacher in high school and all he got was a slap on the wrist.....

After that it got far more irksome. There are some good people who get tenure positions, but there's too much of an ability for abuse of the situation.

Tenure is needed simply because teachers would get tossed for people that would take lessor pay.

However, I could see a modification of tenure were teachers would need to re-certify like Registered Nurses......

Tenure is needed simply because teachers would get tossed for people that would take lessor pay.

However, I could see a modification of tenure were teachers would need to re-certify like Registered Nurses......
Agreed... There should be a re-certification process that makes sure only thoes that are quality educatiors are tenured ... and that thoes that are not are tossed out to make room for fresh blood

Agreed... There should be a re-certification process that makes sure only thoes that are quality educatiors are tenured ... and that those that are not are tossed out to make room for fresh blood

totally.

Nay.

Teachers have one hell of a respeonsible position. They mold our children in so many ways, we need to ensure that only the "right" ones become teachers, and only those who remain "right" remain teachers.

I have head my fair share of teachers who should have been removed from the job, and it was more than frustrating to see them not having to bear any consequences of their unacceptable behavior.

Secondly, I am aspiring to be a teacher, too, and I see so very many people in my uni classes who chose this career goal only because of the job benefits, especially the tenure part. I cannot support any measure that makes people choose to be a teacher because of reasons like that.

Just thought I'd let you folks who obviously don't know much about tenure in on something--full-tenured professors do relatively little teaching, especially at the undergraduate level. Tenure in my department means a 3-2 teaching load, which is 5 classes a year, plus summers if you want them, and of those 5 classes, most tenured professors teach at least 2, and sometimes 3 graduate level seminars, which are low-enrollment courses. In the hard sciences, if the professors are involved in major research (i.e. potentially money making stuff) they may not teach at all, as their profit potential to the university through patents and the like is far more valuable than their usually limited skills in the classroom.

In short, if you want to bitch about tenure, leave teaching ability out of it--it's rarely a concern.

Nay.

Teachers have one hell of a respeonsible position. They mold our children in so many ways, we need to ensure that only the "right" ones become teachers, and only those who remain "right" remain teachers.

I have head my fair share of teachers who should have been removed from the job, and it was more than frustrating to see them not having to bear any consequences of their unacceptable behavior.

Secondly, I am aspiring to be a teacher, too, and I see so very many people in my uni classes who chose this career goal only because of the job benefits, especially the tenure part. I cannot support any measure that makes people choose to be a teacher because of reasons like that.

The question is, would an abscence of tenure really mean that the bad teachers will get fired? Schools have almost no incentive to hire competent teachers, so most of the time bad teachers will stay anyway. For that matter, bad teachers usually have better job prospects than good teachers anyway (known as the "stupid people always succeed" effect), so abolishing tenure will merely replace the good teachers with bad ones, not the other way around.

I've seen some people talking about high school teachers getting tenured, does that actually happen? I thought it was just university teachers.

Although tenuring maybe an old tradition I think it still has some merit. It is in the nature of research to challenge accepted knowledge which can sometimes raise anger. It may also take a long time to prove the alternate version of the knowledge you have challenged so on the whole I think it is a good thing. Maybe a way can be thought up to get rid of teachers whose research has been useless for many years though.

Just thought I'd let you folks who obviously don't know much about tenure in on something--full-tenured professors do relatively little teaching, especially at the undergraduate level.
---snippage---
In short, if you want to bitch about tenure, leave teaching ability out of it--it's rarely a concern.

No need to become bitchy, Nazz. I shall not speak for anyone but myself, but I definitely was talking about teachers as in (school) grades 1-13. In my country, school teachers hold tenure, too.

I agree that college/uni is a different issue, and I will not touch it here.

On one hand, teacher tenure ensures guaranteed job security for a badly-needed profession. Teachers cannot be fired for openly disagreeing with authorities or popular opinion. It's also argued that teachers can produce better results when they are not worried about their financial future.

On the other hand, there are some really, really bad teachers who only "teach" so they can keep getting paid. The Revocation process to fire bad teachers is so drawn-out and difficult it is very discouraging, and practically the only times it does work is if the teacher was sexually involved with a student.

So, do you support Teacher Tenure?
Reluctantly at the college level, no way at anything below that!

The question is, would an abscence of tenure really mean that the bad teachers will get fired? Schools have almost no incentive to hire competent teachers, so most of the time bad teachers will stay anyway. For that matter, bad teachers usually have better job prospects than good teachers anyway (known as the "stupid people always succeed" effect), so abolishing tenure will merely replace the good teachers with bad ones, not the other way around.
I should have been more clear. "Bad" teachers, in my vocab for this thread, shall refer to teachers who violate either the law, their contract, or both.
In specific cases I encountered, that would be teachers who engage in Nazi hate speech, fail to show up for classes more foten than actually be there, or do not hand back tests/exams. And yes, those people will get fired then, because violation of those things will result in nobody being able to uphold a teacher's employment once somebody asks for them to be removed.

I have to admit I don't understand that last aprt of your post. Just why do you think that bad teachers have better job prospects? I agree that maybe it is easier in any system to get by if you don't stir waves. But I'm not (only/mainly) talking teachers who are out to better/change the system with innovative ideas. I just want those "good" teachers in who abide by the rules and do their job. And those out who don't.

Reluctantly at the college level, no way at anything below that!
Urgh. Did you have to make me agree with you?

Yes, but if 2/3 of students (and/or 2/3 of parents of said students) taught by a teacher sign a petition to fire said teacher. The teacher should be fired.

Urgh. Did you have to make me agree with you?
Why is that a problem? All it does is indicate that you have a bit of wisdom, at least in this case! :D

Just thought I'd let you folks who obviously don't know much about tenure in on something--full-tenured professors do relatively little teaching, especially at the undergraduate level. Tenure in my department means a 3-2 teaching load, which is 5 classes a year, plus summers if you want them, and of those 5 classes, most tenured professors teach at least 2, and sometimes 3 graduate level seminars, which are low-enrollment courses. In the hard sciences, if the professors are involved in major research (i.e. potentially money making stuff) they may not teach at all, as their profit potential to the university through patents and the like is far more valuable than their usually limited skills in the classroom.

In short, if you want to bitch about tenure, leave teaching ability out of it--it's rarely a concern.

Not always.

A Community College once spent a butt load of money getting one asshole teacher with tenure tossed. He taught biology and basically slacked off since he didn't have to worry much anymore. It was only after companies(they took on interns) and other teachers complained that the students weren't up to par. They talked to him and he basically told them to F off because he had tenure.

All it does is indicate that you have a bit of wisdom
I disagree! (yay..) :)

I disagree! (yay..) :)
LOL! [ looks unsurprised ] :D

Yes, but if 2/3 of students (and/or 2/3 of parents of said students) taught by a teacher sign a petition to fire said teacher. The teacher should be fired.
Against. An employment shouldn't be up to popular vote, but to the decision of whether or not somebody is doing their job the way it is laid out in their contract.

Reluctantly at the college level, no way at anything below that!

I agree with this statement. I'll post to define further. At the K-12 level, the teachers should be regarded as ultimately valuable and needed, well paid and truly respected, but as far as tenure goes, they are already Unionized, I don't see the point of doubling their personal protections.

At the College level (2 year) I tend to think that a public college could be aligned with the K-12 program. At the University and post-graduate level and especially at private schools, I think tenured professors is both good for the professor and good for the University trying to attract future students/clients.

As to the public University, I think it could go either way, but I like the idea of tenure, like an appointed Judge, difficult to remove and free to perform within their own guidelines removed from the daily give and take of politics.

For professors at private universities, it’s a university‘s business.
For public educators, no. If they’re going to take my money to pay teachers, the bastards better be teaching the little shits something of substance.

*sighs* A bit 'o education for you all.

Tenure happens at the K-12 level (dependant upon the state) if a teacher passes the thresshold year (usually 2, sometimes longer) having: 1. Passed certification exams for their displine, been reviewed by the department head, the school administration, and (in many cases now) a Master Teacher mentor, any of whom can downcheck a teacher. A downchecked teacher can be either fired or given a year to try again, after that year if the stated improvements are not made, they're out of a job.

Tenure does not mean a teacher cannot be fired if they refuse to do work. It just means they cannot be fired at the whim of the school or district. They have to work and meet the standards set forth by the state BoE and their district BoE, or yes, they can get fired.

It's a trade off, btw. The 'perk' of tenure is matched against low pay. Or to put it another way, as stated by a friend. He works as the Director of Admissions for my university, He makes far more money (more than double) than his wife, a second grade teacher, does, even if she puts in more hours. However, he serves at the pleasure of the university and can be removed with no cause, she has a guranteed job as long as she works.

So the question should be put to those who say nay, are you willing to have your taxes raised to raise teacher pay to compensate?

*sighs* A bit 'o education for you all.

Tenure happens ---snippage of (iAssume) US specifica---

The OP not having specified, I just went ahead with my countries' settings. Many of the things you said do not apply to Germany, and my opinions are formed in the German context.
Please don't assume an all-USian pretext in these discussions, and don't be all condescending when people use different starting points, hmm?

It's a trade off, btw. The 'perk' of tenure is matched against low pay. ---- So the question should be put to those who say nay, are you willing to have your taxes raised to raise teacher pay to compensate?
You are right, and yes, I'd be more than willing to pay probably even more than that would take to ensure a decent level of teaching quality.

I say Yea because Teacher's Tenure prevents teachers from getting fired for stupid reason. The tenure forces the school, or district to actually have probable cause to fire the teacher. Without tenure a school or district can just fire a teacher on a whim, and that goes into the teacher's record. If a teacher is fired on a whim, how hard do you think it'll be for him to find another job with that mark on his record? Very hard.

I say Yea because Teacher's Tenure prevents teachers from getting fired for stupid reason.
It prevents them from getting fired. As in, at all.
The tenure forces the school, or district to actually have probable cause to fire the teacher.
That is what you have contracts, and unions, for. I don't think you need tenure to have protection from on-a-whim firing.
I don't ask for teachers to be open prey. I ask for them to be paid well for doing an important job, and I ask them to be allowed to do their job even if they are unpopular, but I also ask for them to be fired when they are not doing their job.

The OP not having specified, I just went ahead with my countries' settings. Many of the things you said do not apply to Germany, and my opinions are formed in the German context.
Please don't assume an all-USian pretext in these discussions, and don't be all condescending when people use different starting points, hmm?
As most of those who have replied are from the US, and many of them were incorrect on the details and specifics on tenure, I was attempting to correct this. Granted, I should have stated that this was for US only as those from other countries had been noting that their replies were applicable for their countries only.

The condensending tone comes from having to explain this over, and over again. You'd think someone would actually look up tenure to see how it actually works before commenting.

You are right, and yes, I'd be more than willing to pay probably even more than that would take to ensure a decent level of teaching quality.
Thank you, I wish we had more folks like you as many people are all for quality education till you mention that means a raise in taxes.

It prevents them from getting fired. As in, at all.
I'd love to have Germany's system then.

That is what you have contracts, and unions, for. I don't think you need tenure to have protection from on-a-whim firing.
Are German teachers allowed to strike? It depends on the state here, but many teachers are not allowed to strike, or can only strike for a set number of days.

You'd think someone would actually look up tenure to see how it actually works before commenting.
Nah, this is General.

.. many people are all for quality education till you mention that means a raise in taxes.
Maybe widespread quality education will slowly get rid of those?

I'd love to have Germany's system then.

*gasps*

Are German teachers allowed to strike? It depends on the state here, but many teachers are not allowed to strike, or can only strike for a set number of days.

No, we cannot. Nor can we be in politics-related positions, and even the right to participate in demonstrations against the current status of things related to our employment is limited.