<p>Those teachers in NY are warehoused because the administration will not or can not hold hearings documenting why they should be removed. One teacher claims that he was removed because he documented misdeeds of the principal. Should he be fired without a hearing or documentation that he was a nonperforming teacher?</p>
<p>
There’s probably a message board somewhere where this is happening too–and maybe somebody has posted there to remind the teachers that most students are good.</p>
<p>I should mention that I do not want bad teachers in the classroom. My concern is that I feel that the loss of a job is a devasting event and when possible the employee deserves at least some factual reason why they are losing the job. It should not come out of the blue. Their supervisor should have advised them of their shortcomings and documented the employees failings. Layoffs for economic reasons that will not apply but removal for cause should not be at a whim.</p>
<p>My father was a long-time elementary principal and has now been on the school board for 8 years. I see the same thing as many of the above posters–that tenure enables teachers to stay who shouldn’t. However, he feels strongly that tenured teachers <em>can</em> be fired, but it’s much extra work and that most administrators don’t want to do it and that most administrators are too adverse to conflict and doing what needs to be done.</p>
<p>In regards to pay, we are in the rural mid-west. 20 years experience in teaching = $55,000 for 180 days work. 95% of the district parents don’t make that for 250 days work/year. Teachers can retire at age 55, receiving approximately $25,000/year that was paid for 99% with corporation funds. Wow! Almost no one in the “real world” retires with a defined benefit pension or one paid entirely by employer. Cost of their health insurance is $1/year. Again, not found in the private sector. Teachers are not underpaid in this area.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I think everyone should agree that there should be some kind of hearing or whatever - especially if the teacher is being punished for knowing something bad about the principal.</p>
<p>The problem is that rarely do schools ever even attempt to document the failings of a teacher so that he/she can be fired. Instead, most schools just turn a blind eye.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would not be surprised to learn that they also complain about parents.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>No one, in any job, should just be fired “out of the blue” unless they’ve done something grievious (stealing, molesting a child, etc). Anyone who is doing a substandard job or is doing something that is nutty or annoying, should be properly instructed on what improvements need to be demonstrated. Then, after a period of time, a review should happen to see if the improvements take place.</p>
<p>At my sons’ school, there was one teacher who notoriously assigned a lot of homework. During fall break, she assigned so much homework, no student could go on a vacation or anything. This teacher was finally ordered to stop doing this when I asked the principal: “So, is fall break just a break for you and your staff, or is it a break for students, too? Because if it’s just a break for educators, then just honestly say so, because your teachers make it quite clear that they don’t answer questions or emails during the break because they’re on vacation.” </p>
<p>The principal had to admit that the fall break is supposed to be a break for everyone, so he instituted a “no homework rule” for fall break, Tgiving break, Christmas break, and spring break. </p>
<p>But, frankly, why does a parent have to point out such silliness? Why aren’t the “experts” preventing these issues in the first place?</p>
<p>“However, he feels strongly that tenured teachers <em>can</em> be fired, but it’s much extra work and that most administrators don’t want to do it and that most administrators are too adverse to conflict and doing what needs to be done.”</p>
<p>I think that this is the real reason why so few incompetant teachers are fired. Teachers and Administrators just want everyone to “get along”. They don’t like conflict, especially when that conflict is an annoyed parent. It’s easier just to ignore them and hope that they will go away. Teachers don’t want pay based on performance because that’s “competition”. They believe that competition among students is bad (so “Everybody gets a blue ribbon!!!”), but competition between teachers for salary is anathema. It’s not equal pay for equal work, it’s equal pay for equal teaching credentials and seniority.</p>
<p>It’s not equal pay for equal work, it’s equal pay for equal teaching credentials and seniority. </p>
<p>Hat- I do not disagree with this statement. That is why a merit raise system needs to be beyond reproach or political manipulation.</p>
<p>My father was a manager at a huge private company. They had a bureaucracy to rival any school system or other governmental entity. His mantra was “They don’t pay me as a manager to call Joe into my office and tell him what a great job he is doing. They pay me as a manager to call Joe into my office and tell him that he needs to get his act together or he’s gone.” I don’t think my father’s management style was based on fear, but his point was that the hard part of the job was dealing with the employees that were screwing up. </p>
<p>And I submit that the big problem with school bureaucracies is that most managers don’t have the skills or backbone to deal with poor performers. And they use “the system” as an excuse to not do their jobs. I don’t think you should take a management job if you aren’t willing to do the tough part.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Well, we really can’t pay a brand new 1st grade teacher the same salary as 10 year veteran 1st grade teacher. </p>
<p>Yes, they’re both with kids the same number of hours, but the veteran teacher should have more value to the school, she will often have to “assist” the newbie in various ways, etc.</p>
<p>so, we can’t give them “equal pay” for working the same job, because the 10 year vet isn’t really doing the “same” job.</p>
<p>^^delamer–
Yes, that’s exactly what my father (the former principal and now school board member) says–that administrators use the excuse of “tenure” because they don’t want to deal with the underperformers.</p>
<p>I have dealt with prinicpals and superintendents on several issues over the last 15 years. One thing I don’t understand is why they “dance” around a problem and don’t want to deal with it head-on. I have been told numerous times, “Well, it’s a delicate issue dealing on these types of things with teachers.” We were talking about the dress code for teachers and how many of the young female teachers were dressing extremely unprofessionally and being mistaken for students!! A different time we were discussing a teacher’s complete lack of control in the classroom.</p>
<p>Why do subjects like that need to be hinted at and spoken about in “hidden” terms? The administrator is hoping someone gets the message? In my experience in the private sector with employee reviews (as both the employee and also as a manager), the underperforming employee was told “We expect X behavior. Your behavior is Y behavior. You need to perform at X level.” They may, or may not, have given an employee help to get to that level, but there was clarity about what was wrong and what was expected.</p>
<p>In my experience, this wasn’t one administrator–it was many over the course of 15 years.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>To me, it seems like this would be a rather easy problem to fix. You take teacher A and say, “You’re having problems controlling your classroom; you need some guidance. This is what you need to do. XXX, XXX, and XXX. I’m going to be coming into your classroom time to time to observe. If you’d like, Teacher B who uses good control techniques can also provide you with some guidance. You can also sit-in on her class to observe some of her techniques.”</p>
<p>Frankly, I think some of the reasons some (especially younger) teachers lack control in their classrooms is because their “master” teachers were rarely ever in the room when they were “student teachers.” Student teachers need to spend time observing teachers who have complete classroom control.</p>
<p>^^ right, seems logical to me. The problem is the asst. principal and the principal do not want to tell the teacher directly that she has classroom control issues. ??? Every parent with a student in her classes knows she has classroom control issues. This is a
7th year teacher and the same issues existed 6 years ago when my S had her. This principal and VP were not here then.</p>
<p>The teacher routinely calls the vice-principal on the class phone during class for assistance. I’m positive the asst. principal and principal are well aware she has problems with controlling the class. So, please, deal with them!! Frustrating…</p>
<p>I have a curious question for those who are teachers: Why do so many kids come to college not knowing how to write sentences that make any sense structurally and grammatically? Or what plagiarism is and why it is wrong? </p>
<p>Is it the fault of the schools, the parents, the teachers, the students, or all of the above?</p>
<p>Frankly, I think some of the reasons some (especially younger) teachers lack control in their classrooms is because their “master” teachers were rarely ever in the room when they were “student teachers.” Student teachers need to spend time observing teachers who have complete classroom control.</p>
<p>Excellent observation, I think you are right on.</p>
<p>"The problem is the asst. principal and the principal do not want to tell the teacher directly that she has classroom control issues. ??? "</p>
<p>Frequently they do tell the teacher directly and are in the classroom every day. There are teachers who even with this are not capable and unwilling to change. With tenure, there is little recourse unless the teacher does something illegal.</p>
<p>"The problem is the asst. principal and the principal do not want to tell the teacher directly that she has classroom control issues. ??? "</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Frequently??? Frequently??? This is not a frequent occurence anywhere in the US… (my SIL who has taught for over 30 years is laughing at this statement, too)</p>
<p>And, even more rarely would an administrator sit-in on the classroom day after day observing. In reality, during the rare times that admin does observe to determine such a problem, they come in, sit for about an hour or so, then they leave…and that’s it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Pageturner - absolutely you are. It is part of your job. That is not to say you should be dishonest in the recommendation, but you should present the student in the best light you honestly can. And to turn your question around - What if the teacher is a slaker or worse> Is the school obligated to pay them?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, benefits are huge. In my state, teachers have typically had 100% free provided health care and can retire at 55 with a huge pension benefit. Just recently they have started to pay a pittance $5 to $10 a month for their health care benefit. This is on top of high salaries. I have access to data from all public schools in my area and starting pay averages a little more than $40,000 and rises to a little more than $100,000</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly !!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I will let you all in on a dirty little secret. Where do you think all those Principals / Admins come from? Ask most of them what they started their careers as - and you will find it was as a teacher. Therein lies a big part of the issue. Its rare to find a good teacher who makes a good administrator. As noted above most teachers do not like conflict - and those that become administrators carry that attitude with them. Furthermore, they are naturally sympathetic to their fellow teaching brethren as most have not had to work out in the real world so they really have a distorted view of the workplace and how things work everywhere else</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I completely agree. :)</p>