Why is it so difficult to fire under-performing public-school teachers?

ya..... wrote:

If teachers have the authority to create arbitrary tests and measures for those that are the future of our country, then we should be able to enforce scientific and evidence based testing on the teachers themselves.

Please more fully explain this well thought out proposal.

Thanks.

HRE wrote:

Those aren't rhetorical questions. Rhetorical questions are questions that the questioner presumes to know the answers to and obviously that's not the case here. The OP's question itself is actually pretty empty for the reasons" just another guy" points out. You cannot begin to address any questions about under performance without defining what under performance is.

By your "logic" (and that of 'just another guy') virtually all employees in virtually all businesses should be essentially un-fire-able.

If that isn't lame then I'd be hard pressed to find something that is.

Oh, and by the way:

Def: Rhetorical Question - a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point, rather than to elicit an answer.

So, I suppose if you can't even get your definitions correct it should come as no surprise that basic logic completely eludes you.

Empower the Principals.

Teachers want to be considered professionals. In other professions, managers evaluate their staff. They try to use as much objectivity as they can, but in the end they make their own judgments as to whether their team members are worth keeping on, training more, giving a raise to, etc.

It is far from a perfect system, but my experience in the business world is that it works pretty well.

The result? The better teachers would make more money and be given more responsibility. The bad ones would be weeded out quickly.

I haven't seen an organization yet that wouldn't be better off by replacing 10-15% of its poorest performers. This isn't a bash on teachers ... I just don't see anything inherently different in teaching that would prevent this from working.

Let me be a school Principal for 5 years. Each year let me replace 10% of the staff. In 5 years, you would all be begging to send your children to my school. And I will have the happiest teaching staff in the country.

I am a software engineer. What is your measurement for calculating my 'under-performing'?

Thank you in advance for your well thought out proposal.

jjjjjj wrote:

Public school teachers as a whole outperform private school teachers, factoring in demographics. So, there is no reason to fire the former.

If you mean some specific individuals, then it can be difficult to fire them,.

Anything to back up this statement?

Of course we are speaking about firing INDIVIDUAL teachers and the difficulty in doing so.

Recognizer of Lame Posts wrote:

By your "logic" (and that of 'just another guy') virtually all employees in virtually all businesses should be essentially un-fire-able.

.

If you take the time to read this entire thread you will see that your statement above is not in agreement with my previous posts.

I question the validity of measuring a teachers performance based on classroom standardized test results but I do not believe that teacher performance should not be subject to review.

Don't be lazy, read the entire thread.

Computer Guy wrote:

I am a software engineer. What is your measurement for calculating my 'under-performing'?

Thank you in advance for your well thought out proposal.

The most obvious is time spend on a social forum during the workday.

just another guy wrote:

Computer Guy wrote:

I am a software engineer. What is your measurement for calculating my 'under-performing'?

Thank you in advance for your well thought out proposal.

The most obvious is time spend on a social forum during the workday.

So you are conceding that software engineers should also be granted essentially 100% job security regardless of performance (measured or otherwise). Got it.

Will you put up a better defense regarding the job security of nearly every other profession or are you basically conceding on all fronts at this point?

jag got pwnd AGAIN!!! I love it!

just another guy wrote:

Computer Guy wrote:

I am a software engineer. What is your measurement for calculating my 'under-performing'?

Thank you in advance for your well thought out proposal.

The most obvious is time spend on a social forum during the workday.

Oh, and by the way, huge numbers of software engineers work at very, VERY different hours than what you might perceive as "the workday". With your background I am not surprised by your lack of awareness of this fact.

At any rate, your post score very well on two fronts - Ignorance (see 'workday' above) and Complete lack of even a hint of a "well thought out proposal".

I will await your well thought out proposal. Until produced, the 'logic' that you have been propounding on this thread is obviously completely devoid of substance.

I think just another guy is looking for answers so I don't see his questions as rhetorical but no, that doesn't preclude making a point and his points are not nearly as empty as the OP's question..

No one is saying that it should be impossible to fire teachers, and it's not, but you just can't go round dumping people because you want to and then say it's because they're under performing. You need to define what they're deficiencies are and give them a reasonable time to correct them.

All school systems require teachers to do and not do certain things and can fire them if they don't meet those requirements. Teachers need to be in the building by a certain time, stay until another certain time, have lesson plans, attend in services, faculty meetings, be available to parents and students, return assignments in a reasonable time, provide feedback to students and other things that I'm not going to ruminate about. If a teacher consistently fails to do these sorts of things s/he can be fired. I suppose you could define under performance as a consistent failure to do some or all of those things.

But mostly you guys who start these "it's so awful that teachers have job security" threads are not really concerned with the performance of the teachers. It's really the performance of students that you're on about and you rarely seem to acknowledge that no teacher can make another person do or not do something. A cross country coach can be a competent coach yet still have no runners under 17:30 not because he's an under performing coach but because he has no athletes capable of running that fast. Yes, there may be other coaches who are near brilliant and could squeeze another half minute out of some of those runners but that doesn't mean the other coach is under performing. Similarly, a 9th grade English teacher who has half of his class reading no higher than 6th grade level is not going to get the same performances from his students as he would if the whole class was reading above the 9th grade level.

And it's partly because of people like you, who essentially can't distinguish between teachers that you don't like and want to fire from those who are truly incompetent, that teachers have been smart enough to organize in ways that provides some protection from those people. The other reason it's harder to fire teachers than it is to fire private employees is the same reason it's harder to fire cops and firemen. Historically, those jobs were political patronage jobs and if "your" mayor or councilor lost the next election you may well be replaced by someone connected to the new mayor or councilor.

But that's probably lame because you disagree and it doesn't make sense to you and that's OK. I'm guessing lots of things don't.

What exactly is my background? It appears as though someone else is making assumptions not based on fact.

And please point out the 'logic' you are referring to that is devoid of substance.

Thanks for your educated assistance.

should read "...need to define what THEIR deficiencies are.." or "...what they're doing that's deficient..."

Computer Guy wrote:

So you are conceding that software engineers should also be granted essentially 100% job security regardless of performance (measured or otherwise). Got it.

It appears as though someone has taken an incorrect logic leap in their argument. I, in no way, was conceding that any employee should be granted job security regardless of performance. This statement leads me to question your reasoning skills.

Will you put up a better defense regarding the job security of nearly every other profession or are you basically conceding on all fronts at this point?

I am not sure why I am being asked to put up a defense regarding the job security of every other profession. I am conceding nothing to your ill-conceived arguments as they have no merit.

Good Lord!!! I think of all of the ways young people are influenced throughout their lives w/pop culture & media, single parent families (42%) in transition from town to town/country to country, homeless etc... and then the shrinking percentage of time devoted to parenting. The bottom line is that public schools and their teachers aren't supposed to "fix" the kids to your standards. They are to present information, ideas, prompt creative solutions based on experiences in collaborative settings, provide various avenues for a variety of learning strategies and applications of the academics to real world problems etc.... Teaching methods have certainly changed a great deal for the better over the years regarding inclusion, differentiation, business partnerships, workplace connections and internships, college credit opportunities etc...

The product (student) is certainly not entering the door in perfect condition nor is it leaving 100% ready to take on the world. Society has become such a complicated pool of problems that impact readiness to learn from an early age that the system can't serve all in all environments the way we would like it to. Yes, there are bad teachers that should be re-trained or removed. However, there are a lot of good teachers in bad environments taking on students that aren't ready to learn as well. They usually get worn down early on in their career and look for better opportunities elsewhere or leave the education profession altogether. Meanwhile, I have also witnessed more and more people leaving industry/business and coming into education as well. They have a lot of experience in the field but bring a different perspective to the classroom than a traditional teacher. It works well for some but not all.

voice of reason wrote:

Here's why:

How do we look into the job effectiveness of teachers? Have their co-workers/friends(all of whom believe that their institution should be above reproach) take a cursory look into any complaints, and then give 'em the old green light to keep on keeping on. Why is this ok? Because we common folk don't understand the intricacies of the job and the pressure involved.

Why can't we get rid of this system and have an independent body tasked with objective evaluation of these situations, right? I mean it's just common sense......

Right?

Oh, by the way - a funny thing happens when you replace the word "teachers" in the first sentence with "police officers".

what funny thing happens? Pretty damn difficult to fire cops - or indict them - even when they kill unarmed Americans & then lie their asses off about it..

Bingo. All those screaming for public sector "accountability" tuck tail or even actively oppose it when it comes to police - which bankrupts their entire argument.

Voice of reason wrote:

Bingo. All those screaming for public sector "accountability" tuck tail or even actively oppose it when it comes to police - which bankrupts their entire argument.

Nope. I believe in public sector accountability for both teachers and cops.

Which pretty much bankrupts your entire argument (and makes you a liar).

It is not difficult if administrators follow a specific protocol outlined by due process that teachers earn. Document poor performance, offer suggestions and a chance to improve and re-evaluate. If administrators document continued poor performance then the teacher can be fired.