Right Bill, Wrong Time
So the news out yesterday (along with the lackluster State of the State speech by Governor Haslam) was that the TEA will not “adamantly oppose” Governor Haslam’s tenure legislation (h/t SCORE):
The state’s teachers have serious reservations about a measure that would make it tougher for them to get tenure, but they’re not going to “adamantly oppose” the changes, a lobbyist for their union said Monday.
The proposal by Republican Gov. Bill Haslam would require a teacher to be on the job five years instead of three to get tenure and would also create a way for job security to be revoked for poor teaching performance.
Haslam was scheduled to present his first state budget plan to Tennessee lawmakers Monday evening.
Critics say the evaluation system for tenure isn’t in effect yet and that it has not been determined how best to rate educators whose subjects aren’t covered by the state’s value-added test scoring program.
…
Tennessee Education Association lobbyist Jerry Winters said he understands the votes are there for the proposal to pass this session, which is why the TEA plans to make sure all teachers understand the new rules.
“We think until teachers know the rules, which will be outlined in the evaluation system, it could have a negative impact on attracting new people into the profession,” he said. “So, we’re going to work hard to educate prospective teachers and current teachers that would be impacted about the evaluation system. We’re not going to adamantly oppose these changes, but we do think they need to know the rules of the game.”
So here’s the legislation, HB 2012 / SB 1528, in a nutshell (I’m cribbing from my tweets from last week):
(1) The bill redefines grounds for dismissal, expanding the “inefficiency” grounds to include evaluations that are “below expectations.”
(2) The bill changes the requirements for tenure; now must show “effectiveness” on the new evaluations to get AND keep tenure.
(3) The bill states that teachers do not have a property right in their tenure.
(4) The bill changes tenure eligibility date from 3 years to 5 years.
(5) The bill specifies that to get tenure, teachers must achieve “above/significantly above expectations” on last two evaluations before getting tenure.
(6) For teachers who get below/significantly below expectations two years in a row, the bill removes tenure and puts teacher back into probationary status.
(7) For rehiring teachers who are laid off because of cutbacks (as opposed to fired for cause), the bill allows consideration of recent evaluations in the decision as to whether to rehire that teacher.
See, here’s the thing. Except for a few details (the fact that above/significantly above expectations evaluations are required for the two evaluations immediately preceding the tenure decision (rather than, say, 3 out of 5 as above/significantly above and 2 out of 5 at least “meets expectations”)), this is a pretty good bill.
I’m on record lots of times saying that tenure needs to be fixed. This is partially because pretty much everyone who goes up for tenure gets it, but, contrary to the talking points, not so much because it’s like sooo hard to fire teachers (which, admittedly, it can be).
This gets to a larger point: Tenure is important because it is (or should be) a recognition of excellence. It should be a reward for excellent teaching, and should set apart those teachers who are truly “master” teachers. Right now it’s just a default setting. What I don’t believe is that tenure is out there protecting hundreds or thousands of terrible teachers. Despite what Newsweek might say, we can’t fire our way to an excellent teaching force (here’s one take on the argument), even though Eric Hanushek would probably disagree (though much less than people would like to make out). There just aren’t that many bad teachers out there and more importantly, there probably aren’t enough good/excellent teachers, or even average ones, who would take their places, at least not for what a teacher makes. Like a mentor of mine used to say: It may be hard to fire a teacher, but if you want it enough, you can get it done. If you can’t, then perhaps it’s you that should be fired.
For me, it’s much better to take what you have, thereby supporting average or underperforming teachers to make them better. The pipeline just isn’t out there to fire our way to a premier teaching force. It just isn’t.
Tangent aside, herein lies one of the two major flaws in the legislation: We make tenure harder to get and keep, but don’t make it any more meaningful. The legislation treats tenure like the difficultly-obtained brass ring that it should be, but then offers no reward for getting it. If we’re truly trying to incentivize teachers to get and keep tenure (and if tenure is synonymous with excellent evaluations, which are synonymous with student achievement, a suspiciously long daisy-chain), then status (and pay) upgrades need to go with it. Substantial ones.
Here’s my other major problem with the legislation: The whole thing hinges on the new evaluation system, but we aren’t even close to figuring that system out. We’re still in beta testing, and according to what I’m hearing, and what even co-sponsor Sen. Woodson, admitted, we’re a long way from getting it perfect.
How is it fair to base long-ranging career decisions on an evaluation system that isn’t even finished?
I’ve talked about this before, but we have a lot of problems to overcome before this system is any good (though I have faith that we can do so). I mean, right now we have 70-80% of Tennessee educators (which includes guidance counselors, librarians, etc.) who have no TVAAS data at all. The evaluation system doesn’t go into full effect until 2012. Why are we putting legislation into play, the heart of which won’t be finished until next year? This, of course, was Sen. Stewart’s point, though his amendment to delay enactment of the bill until the new evaluation system is up and running was voted down.
The bill ultimately passed the Senate. Here’s the video of the debate (scroll down and click on SB 1528 to skip ahead to debate on the bill), if you’re interested.
Also, it’s on the agenda for the House Education Committee calendar for today (12 pm). You should tune in. I know I will.
Edit (8:08am): I hate the fact that WordPress won’t let you embed video except for YouTube. I took out the embedded General Assembly video and put in a link instead. Stupid site.
Has it been determined what exactly comprises the 15% of “Other Student Achievement”?
Another quick question: Do you assume it’s a given that whatever evaluation criteria is devised for subjects without standardized tests attached will be rather subjective? If so, it seems teachers of those subjects will have an easier route to tenure than their colleagues who teach AYP-bearing courses.
The other 15% is not going to be determined by law. Right now, the TEAC is narrowing down a list of “choices” for teachers and their evaluators to choose from. Eventually, the teacher will, in collaboration with his/her evaluator (usually the principal), pick from a “menu” of choices that can count for that 15%. That “menu” is what is being determined, but will definitely include TVAAS data if a teacher wants (making TVAAS count for 50% of a teacher’s evaluation), and probably other things like portfolios and other student work.
A lot of non-tested subjects have tests out there — Memphis is moving towards having something like 65-70% of educators with some test data, using a variety of off-the-shelf tests and tests that Memphis is designing. As for the others, we might simply see a shift, where in-person evaluations and other aspects of the evaluation (professional development) count more towards the overall evaluation for these folks than would for a teacher with TVAAS data.
Just a thought…I am pretty positive I have read many times that, in general, a teacher does not get much better of five years of teaching. If this is the case (and assuming the teachers continue to be highly effective) why should they have tenure at all? Just want does tenure accomplish that isn’t already guaranteed in today’s work place regardless of it being in the public or private sector — right of due process? Thanks!
You’ve definitely identified a problem — tenure is meant to be a “reward,” but one of the main problems has been that everybody gets it. In terms of what it’s worth, its intrinsic value is the increased job protections on top of constitutionally-mandated due process proceedings (which every government worker must get as a matter of law). The bill goes quite a ways towards softening these protections, even after a teacher achieves tenure (defining tenure as not a property right — this is meant to go hand-in-hand with the new provision that will allow tenure to be taken away after 2 years of sub-par performance).
As far as your point towards teachers not improving after 5 years — there is some research to suggest an effectiveness plateau after 5 years, but most teachers would argue (and I’d agree), that if a teacher shows truly excellent performance for 5 years, they should be rewarded for their excellence. What that reward is, we should spend some time talking about. But I don’t think it’s wrong to do the rewarding (especially if you can take it back, should that person suddenly quit trying).
I don’t mind rewarding a teacher or anyone if after five years not only are they doing well but they continue to do so…just saying when due process is guaranteed everyone including government workers there is no need for the reward to be tenure…thanks for your comments.
Am I correct that the new law will affect teachers who have not earned tenure by July 1, 2011?
Sorry for the delay — that’s right. Anybody who would have gotten tenure this year still gets it. Everybody else gets put off at least a few years.
I am so glad you all seem to think that just because teachers put in the time we automatically get tenure. This is not true by any means! This is my third year and there are rumors flying around my district that the director of schools is being very picky as to who she gives tenure to! And she is using the last 2 years test scores as a major part of that decision. I teach math – so the 1st year I taught, I was new so I had a so-so year, the 2nd year I taught they changed the standards and my 7th graders had to go from 6th grade math up to 8th grade math with some 9th grade math thrown in. So I had to teach my students 2 years worth of math last year — did you really expect my students to do awesome on the test??? The state wasn’t even sure how to score the test – so I am being punished because the state in it’s infinite wisdom decided that the students needed to jump up two grade levels at once instead of doing it bit by bit. So it makes my look like a bad teacher. And then you have students who don’t care about these tests and just make pretty little patterns on the score sheets. I have the perfect solution for this problem and a way to make it mandatory for parents to be involved in their child’s education ~ which 90% of them in my school is not ~ unless of course you call little Johnny on the carpet about him being disrespectful or telling you lies ~ then they are all up in your face about how little Johnny would never do something like that!!!