Donate now

Privacy Policy

Protection of privacy is our first concern, and SQE does not sell or trade information provided by its subscribers or supporters. Your information is used to process donations and newsletter subscriptions, and to contact you about upcoming publications and events.

feed iconSubscribe to our Blog

Follow Us
Follow SQESocQualEd
on Twitter

Please note Downloads require you to have the Adobe Reader installed, you can get it here for free Adobe.com

 

 
 
Society for Quality Education

Teachers are not all built out of ticky-tacky and they don’t look just the same

May 01, 2012 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) at 03:47 AM

Following on from yesterday's posting, the newfound ability to conduct value-added evaluations of teachers begs the question of what should be done with this knowledge. At present, perhaps partly due to ignorance of these new statistical capabilities and perhaps partly due to system constraints on firing poor performers, virtually all teachers receive the same "satisfactory" ratings. Here is a relevant excerpt from Teachers Matter (p. 46).

  • We must keep in mind that public schools do not operate in a market environment. An employer in the private sector pays a price for getting rid of effective workers: he earns smaller profits. Public schools, however, don't face the market's wrath. On the contrary, since students are assigned to public schools based on their residential address, the enrollment that drives public school revenues is not altered substantially if the school's performance declines. A principal who wants to get rid of a teacher despite his effectiveness in the classroom need have little concern about the effect her decision will have on the school's bottom line or her own job.
  • Many education reformers envision a day when school choice forces public schools to confront robust market forces just as a private company does. Even with the recent dramatic expansion of charter schools across the nation, market incentives will not be strong enough to hold subjective evaluations in check. Nor are they likely to be so powerful anytime in the near future.
  • Subjective evaluations work well in the private sector because they hold stakes for both the observer and the observed. Likewise, an effective evaluation system for public school teachers that hinges on principal discretion must hold stakes for both parties. Absent market forces, the best way that public school have found to mimic the market's discipline is policies of accountability. A wide body of research shows that public schools respond to the incentives imposed by accountability policies focused on evaluating overall school performance.

As usual, the absence of market forces leads to distorted incentives and systemic problems. Tomorrow, I'll look at the effect of the absence of market forces on teacher compensation and the anti-excellence pressures that result.

Share this article

Comments

Another red herring - or shall I say a ‘red, white and blue’ herring.  Yes many Americans are convinced that getting rid of tenure will improve education, but it is a gross oversimplification of a complex situation.  Here is why:

1)  It is difficult to get rid of ANY employee - tenured or not.  From airline pilots to zoo keepers, employers must show a concerted effort to PROPERLY train an incompetent employee before dismissal - otherwise the employer opens him/herself to a lawsuit.  Teachers are no different.  Legal experts in the US are now saying that non-tenured teaching staff are just as difficult to fire

2)  In Ontario, we have the College of Teachers.  Read the ‘Governing Ourselves’ section - it details cases where teachers have lost their certification - no certification = no job.

3)  We now have ‘tenured students’.  Despite recent regulations, students are more difficult to expel than ever.  No matter how violent or disruptive, we must accept them into our classrooms.  You forget that education is made up of two main elements: a good teacher and a good student.

Posted by Wayne Scott Ng on 05/01 at 07:41 AM

1) Yes dismissal is hard. Maybe easier than tenure, I don’t know, but still hard.
Long contracts - 3-5 years with 3-6-12 months probation periods may work better.
The other side of the coin is that if you want people to invest themselves you need to give them a long term stability if they deserve it.

2) The certification is bogus to start with.
It just certifies one has a teaching degree.
Being a competent teacher? It is something very different.

3) I fully agree. As much as I believe that a lot of elementary teachers are not competent the other aspect is that even competent teachers find it next to impossible to teach in today’s chaotic classrooms.

Posted by fromEurope on 05/01 at 05:50 PM

“1)  It is difficult to get rid of ANY employee - tenured or not.  From airline pilots to zoo keepers, employers must show a concerted effort to PROPERLY train an incompetent employee before dismissal - otherwise the employer opens him/herself to a lawsuit.  Teachers are no different.  Legal experts in the US are now saying that non-tenured teaching staff are just as difficult to fire”

Not in the real work Wayne. If an Engineer screws up specs. on a building, bridge or piece of equipment seniority matters NOT! Mistakes have consequences and substandard work isn’t rewarded.

“2)  In Ontario, we have the College of Teachers.  Read the ?Governing Ourselves? section - it details cases where teachers have lost their certification - no certification = no job.”

The OCOT is another one of those organizations stacked to the rafters with teacher union champions. How many teachers have felt consequences for not teaching children how to read Wayne?

“3)  We now have ?tenured students?.  Despite recent regulations, students are more difficult to expel than ever.  No matter how violent or disruptive, we must accept them into our classrooms.  You forget that education is made up of two main elements: a good teacher and a good student. “

Ah, but you can thank Mr. McGuinty for that Wayne. Some students just don’t deserve to be in a classroom. We had a policy once that gave teachers, principals the authority to do something about disruptive students, but McGuinty, with the backing of the unions and board got rid of that because too many power-hungry types misused the policy and authority.

Posted by Chuck on 05/02 at 08:47 AM

Where I worked, in seven years, 10% our of a total of 100 employees.  Unfortunately all firings were justified, and no one faulted the employer.  Layoffs were another story…  It sure didn’t seem hard to fire people…

Posted by Bev on 05/02 at 10:21 AM

To respond to the points raised:

1)  Termination:  Read what I actually wrote and compare what I said about the DIFFICULTY and RISKS involved in termination and compare that to this quote from a lawyer (generally considered to be a legal expert):

“In order to establish an employee?s incompetence as grounds for dismissal, an employer needs more than mere dissatisfaction with the employee; real incompetence must be proven.  ... the following four points must first be shown in order to ensure that the dismissal was proper:

- The employer communicated the level of performance required of you;
- Suitable instruction was given to you;
- You were incapable of meeting the required level of performance; and
- Warnings were given that failure to improve would result in dismissal.”  (from http://www.toronto-employmentlawyer.com/prove-employee-incompetence)

I have found a number different lawyers across Canada that say the same thing.  Want me reference them as well?

Furthermore, the readers overlooked the second half of the argument:  non-tenured teachers are just as difficult to fire.  This quote from Hendrik C deBruin, US legal expert, (in his introduction to his article Due Process:  Rights of the non-tenured Teacher - sorry I’m not paying for the whole article), “... non-tenured faculty may be entitled to the same procedural due process provisions as tenured faculty.”  http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/30184257?uid=3739448&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=47698961396887  His work is based on the 14th Amendment and he goes on to cite recent cases that found against the employer.

2)  OCT:  If readers actually went to the website as I indicated, they would have found this interesting little fact:  according to their decision database, 14 teachers in Ontario with last name beginning with the letter ‘A’ have either had their licence revoked, suspended or they resigned due to the legal action (in any case, they won’t be teaching).  Extrapolate that for the remainder of the alphabet.  It may also interest you to note that there were 26 cases involving teachers with the letter ‘A’.  By this rough statistical analysis, about 50% of all cases presented to the College of Teachers end in the teacher being removed from the profession.

3)  McGuinty has done little to improve the situation, but the problem began under Harris.  But thanks for bringing in politics - it gives me licence to include this tidbit:  the author of the book Ms. Dare is quoting is a Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, another conservative think tank (quelle surprise).

Posted by Wayne Scott Ng on 05/02 at 04:57 PM

fill your boots Wayne the rest of the world is slowing turning off the mantra that all is equal among educators.

You know it, I know it, and every other parent, student educator knows it.

Now you want us to take a lawyer’s word for things?

Um….not on your life.

Malkin Dare was dead-on in her suggestion.

Posted by Chuck on 05/03 at 10:37 AM

A lot of firings don’t fall into the cited categories above.  Job descriptions and performance appraisals cover a great deal of the above.  Many who have been fired, even wrongly, simply want to sever ties, leave with a reasonable recommendation, in order to get on with their lives.  When there is a very powerful union, however, that is when an employer finds it very difficult to fire an employee.  It’s a drag on private and public institutions; costly for both as well.  Unions should not be protecting members who should be fired—this is not why they were originally formed.  They’ve lost their honour.

Posted by Bev on 05/03 at 11:23 AM

Leave A Comment

Name:

Email (required but not displayed):

Emotions

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: