From http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/us/teacher-tenure-ruling-in-california-is-expected-to-intensify-debate.html:
“Teachers feel under siege by this,” said Susan Moore Johnson, a Harvard education professor who testified for the defendants in the case. “But it’s all in the context of a lack of general support for unions and the caricature that the union has been protecting incompetent teachers. That notion is now more accepted than it ever has been, even though it is not deserved.”
While the image of a union protecting incompetent (or abusive) teachers from being fired may be a caricature, we, union supporters included, can't try to put even one story of an abusive teacher in a statistical context. One is too many and the public's disproportionate focus on those stories can't be criticized. The idea of teachers as in loco parentis is so deeply ingrained that teachers as a whole will always bear more of the blame and none of the credit...just like parents, which means we will always take their best effort for granted and be ready to harshly judge any missteps.
But like parents, teachers should have a larger say in how their environments are structured if they're responsible for what those environments produce. If teachers shouldn't get lifetime employment after a few years, then make them more invested in the outcome by giving them the power of binding no-confidence votes against administrators.
- Why shouldn't parents have more than anecdotal evidence of whether a principal has the confidence of her staff?
- Why not let the public know if a school system really likes a chancellor who may be more good press than substance?
Education reform is needed - higher standards, more accountability, blah blah blah - but more power should be invested in those on the front lines. And we need to look at systemic change, but that's a whole other matter...
