The haves and have-nots of employment tenure
Published July 1, 2014
by Donna Martinez, Carolina Journal Radio, July 1, 2014.
After years of rejecting progressives’ class warfare argument about “the haves” and the “have-nots,” I’m a bit embarrassed to acknowledge they’ve been right all along. Not only that, I’ve been a member of the “have-nots” and didn’t even realize it.
I’m one of the hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians whose job performance and value to my employer determines whether the boss keeps me or shows me the door. There are no special protections for we “have-nots.” We’re evaluated on the quality and quantity of what we produce, and on what our customers have to say about us.
Not so for North Carolina’s “haves.” It was only a few months ago that I discovered public school teachers enjoy a heaping helping of job protection pixie dust. Back in 1971, the General Assembly deemed public school teachers with four years on the job to be immune to the accountability we “have-nots” are saddled with. That’s when legislators used the power of government to bestow on teachers the muscular job protection known as “career status.” Otherwise known as tenure, career status cemented teachers as the state’s most powerful special-interest group.
Because of this special distinction, the No. 1 factor for a “have” in staying employed isn’t performance; it’s how long he/she has been on the job. After four years, “career status” kicks in and virtually guarantees that “haves” keep their jobs for as long they want them.
Are you a stellar teacher whose students are achieving? “Career status” means you keep your job. Are you a mediocre teacher who needs more training or content knowledge? “Career status” means you keep your job. Are you an ineffective teacher who should be fired? “Career status” ensures that firing you is laborious and tedious. Every member of the “haves” is the same in the eyes of the “career status” law: a permanent fixture.
What a shame, and what an obvious misrepresentation of reality. Work a week in any industry, and you’ll spot the co-workers who are top-notch and the sandbaggers who don’t pull their weight. “Career status” protects the sandbagging “haves” and penalizes effective professionals whose students demonstrate measurable achievement. The very people who should be fired — ineffective dabblers whose students languish because of the teacher’s inability to lead a classroom — are rewarded for their failure.
You won’t find me circling the Capitol and ranting and chanting about being a “have-not.” That would make for great theater, but no progress. I’ve chosen instead to applaud the state’s legislative reformers for their courageous fight to end tenure and replace it with long-term contracts that will align the teaching profession with the expectations and accountability we “have-nots” navigate each day.
Media coverage of this debate would have us believe the public is outraged at the prospect of changing how teachers are evaluated. Among those who muscle their way into lawmakers’ offices with sleeping bags in tow, it clearly is. But that view is far from representative. Education Next’s 2013 PEPG Survey showed that, nationally, teachers are split on tenure, tilting in favor of it. Fifty-eight percent of teachers favored tenure, according to the survey, while 35 percent opposed it. Earlier this year, a Civitas Institute poll of North Carolina’s registered voters showed a virtual tie over tenure: 45 percent saying yes and 45 percent saying no.
Then there are the parents. Just 25 percent of parents favored tenure in Education Next’s national survey, 55 percent opposed it, and the rest neither favored nor opposed it. Why would so few parents express support for blanket job protection? Simple. They know when their kids have a “good” teacher and when their kids are stuck with a “bad” teacher. And they don’t want them stuck with a bad one again.
The consequences of continuing to protect bad teachers are steep. As I detailed last year, North Carolina’s 2013 math scores reveal that just 34 percent of eighth-graders scored high enough to be called “proficient” in math. Reading scores were better, but barely. Only 41 percent of eighth-graders were “proficient” in reading. We cannot afford another year of protection for ineffective teachers who enjoy “career status.”
Staggering numbers of North Carolina children are being left behind. Add them to the pot of North Carolina’s “have-nots.”
July 1, 2014 at 10:10 am
Norm Kelly says:
Teaching is sacred. How dare you question anything done by or for teachers. Without tenure, we are told, teachers would be fired indiscriminately. Just because a principal at a school doesn't like a particular teacher, wore the wrong shoes, wore a red shirt on 'celebrate UNC sports day', or any other lame excuse would allow the teacher to be fired. There would be no way of controlling which teachers were fired over a personal vendetta versus those teachers who deserved being fired. It's way too likely that a single parent could have something against their kids teacher and the principal COULD respond to that single complaint by firing the teacher. There would be absolutely NO control of out-of-control principals who simply fired a teacher for no reason, and all the good teachers wouldn't want to teach in NC because they could be fired on a whim, for no reason.
OK. Now, I've taken off my lib hat. I'm putting on my thinking cap. Two different caps, you know. One allows me to think. The other only allows me to drink the kool-aid.
Tenure didn't come along until the 1970's? What ever happened to teachers prior to that? I'll be the stats can show, beyond doubt, that schools improved in every way after 1970. Graduation rates sky-rocketed. Reading and math proficiency hit an all time high. Spending on schools wasn't affected at all. There's NOTHING bad about tenure that can be documented. Of course, there's nothing good about tenure that can be documented either.
What's so darn special about teachers & teaching that without tenure we'd have mass exodus in the teaching profession? Don't forget, we are told that teachers don't ever do it for the money. Teachers ALWAYS do it because they love kids and want only the best for their futures. It's not for the money. It's not for the benefits! Well, in Wake it actually has nothing to do with the benefits. The bennies in Wake are so good that more than half, my estimate, wouldn't notice if the benefits were completely taken away. (and with obamacancer on it's way, the bennies may actually start to disappear!) Why is it this one group should be protected with tenure or career status? Other than it's been around since 1970, practically since the founding of the country!, shouldn't it be phased out for all new teachers? Keep it around for the currently employed teachers, but do away with it for anyone hired after July 15, 2014, for example. I'm betting that we would not see teachers just fired for the heck of it. I'm betting that when teachers are treated like all other employees, the 'have nots', the profession will go on. With very highly qualified and motivated teachers who do the job because they still love it, but expect to be treated fairly. And rewarded or penalized based on their performance. I know the under-performers would complain, but don't they always? Don't change their ways, just complain.
The other part of tenure/career status that is personally offensive is that everyone is treated the same, regardless of performance. Oh, yeah, I'm sure there's SOME flexibility, but not like there should be. It's not just that raises for government employees are based on the same percentages regardless of performance. It also has to do with the fact that if I excel in my classroom and the teacher in the next room is almost operating a day-care instead of teaching, that slacker will maintain their job also. They MIGHT get a smaller raise this year, but they'll still get to keep their job. Do you suppose this is motivating to the teacher who is serious? Why would socialism work in the teaching profession when it fails EVERYWHERE else, EVERY other TIME it's tried? Doesn't it make sense, even to libs with their heads buried, that equal outcomes is DEMOTIVATING? It would appear not. Parents may overwhelmingly want to be able to get rid of bad teachers, but they don't want to eliminate things like tenure to do it. There's GOT to be another, more fair way to do it. Something that's not as demotivating as tenure, but not as demotivating as being fired. You know, something in between. Cuz teachers should be treated better than ANY OTHER employee. It's just right.
July 2, 2014 at 7:41 am
Bill Worley says:
There is so much hatred, vitriole, and tired old false talking points in your long winded post above.
You'd like to create a causal link between tenure and student performance, but you can't because you have two problems. You are not capable of the statistical analysis, and there is no such data available. Your implied argument is similar to saying we didn't have cell phones 40 years ago, murders have gone up the last 40 years, so clearly cell phones have caused an increase in murders. It is, of course, ridiculous.
Your sarcastic comments about teachers choosing to teach because of the kids is just your effort to prove a point by mocking. Yes, the best teachers consider their work a calling, and they are passionate about working with children. But this isn't 1905 with a one room schoolhouse and a solitary school marm as teacher. Being a teacher is a profession, a full time career, requiring a full fledged college degree, the passing of professional exams, licensing, and ongoing professional development. Teachers rightfully expected to be paid a wage commensurate with their training and the importance of their work.
Belittling and mocking educators certainly is not going to fix what you and others find wrong with public education. Issues related to student performance go way beyond what a teacher does or does not do in a classroom. Funny how folks like you want to put all the issues on teachers, but don't feel compelled to look anywhere else.
July 2, 2014 at 10:56 am
Richard Bunce says:
I look at the entirety of the government education industrial complex which has two main goals... to increase resources (taxpayers money mostly) to the traditional government school systems they control and the government education bureaucracies and think tanks they infest... and to kill any competition to traditional government schools including charter governments schools, private school tuition support for relatively low income parents to have alternate education system options for their children as realtively wealthy parents do including many parents in the government education industrial complex, and of course homeschools under any and all circumstances.
Reading the posts here I see the members of the government education industrial complex admitting they are incapable of performing their assigned task of providing proficiency at basic skills for the student population they are assigned using the the resources they are allocated. Since other interests including parents, employers, university/college officials believe that other education systems can do better then we should do all we can to make sure all parents have a real choice in education for their children and not leave it up to government education bureaucrats who have demonstrated for decades now they are not up to the task with their traditional government school systems.
July 5, 2014 at 8:35 pm
Bill Worley says:
Of course, once again, nothing you say makes the least bit of sense nor does it contain the smallest sliver of truth. Could you share with us any comparative statistics across the years that support any of your ramblings? Of course not. And just for the record, writing things like "government educational industrial complex" makes you sound like a wigged out Ted Kaszynski Unabomber wannabe, not a learned, educated man. Less conspiracy theory language (which only causes the vast majority of us to classify you as a loon) and more concrete evidence to back up your nonsense might at least include you in fruitful dialogue.
July 6, 2014 at 2:30 pm
Richard Bunce says:
Your rose colored glasses/blinders not withstanding... there are plenty of government school systems evaluations over the decade that confirm their failure... how about the current Secretary of Education?
"The education secretary said Oklahoma is among the states that need to do a better job of educating its young people.
http://newsok.com/u.s.-education-secretary-arne-duncan-says-politics-led-to-gov.-mary-fallins-repeal-of-common-core-academic-standards/article/4898745
Those OK numbers are comparable to NC numbers.
The government education industrial complex is just as real as the military industrial complex and does far more damage to the students trapped in failed government school systems.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=government%20education%20industrial%20complex&safe=off
Mr. Kaszynski of course was a leftist who like you hated evil corporations and was a dedicated eco terrorist who had spent most of his life in government academia settings.
July 7, 2014 at 11:36 am
Curt Budd says:
School choice is a great "theory". Parents being able to "choose" to send their children to the best schools sounds great. But it is not practical. Low income families dont use the vouchers. The vouchers dont pay to transport the child across town to the "good" school.
The idea of charter schools is a great "theory". Schools that have some freedom to experiment with new, innovative practices to find what works and what doesnt work to share with others sounds great. However, you cannot compare charter and/or private schools success based on test scores when they get to pick and choose their clientele. When I see that some charter schools are rated(under the current biased grading system) as the best in our state, well they sure better be if their enrollment is a hundred hand chosen students. And again, look behind the numbers at who is truly using the vouchers.
Finally, competition in education is a great "theory" and there are ways to use it effectively (we used to have public schools competing for bonuses ad schools until too many schools started meeting the standards and the state couldnt afgord to pay anymore... thats awful isnt it, too many schools meeting growth??!!) , but everyone in a town/city cant send their kid to the "best" school. For one there isnt the physical resources, second could just be the logistics. So what do you and the current legislature propose we do with all the kids that cant get to these ideal schools? Ignore them? Tough luck? How do you get them to the charter/private school across town?
July 7, 2014 at 2:01 pm
Richard Bunce says:
What is not theory is that the majority of students in traditional government schools are not proficient at basic skills. Parents know it, employers know it, college/university officials know it.
Giving parents choice is great in practice... see all the relatively wealthy parents who have made this choice including many elected officials, government education bureaucrats, and government school system administrators/teachers. The supply will keep up with demand... once the parents are freed from failed traditional government school systems.
The average operating expenditure for traditional government schools in the US is over $10K per year. Instead of a less than 50% education voucher for relatively low income parents... provide a pre-refundable Federal and State income tax credit for say all parents below the medium household income and your resource problem will be largely solved. Also provide that same level of per pupil funding to the traditional government school systems based on student enrollment alone... not providing significant revenue to them before the first student is counted.
July 1, 2014 at 11:47 am
Bill Worley says:
While I know this will not be understood or accepted by the zealots out there, I feel compelled to try anyway.
This article could not be more inaccurate or misrepresentative if it tried (and I think it did).
Yes, career status is conveyed to public school teachers in North Carolina after having worked 4 years in probationary status. During those 4 years the teacher can be dismissed at any time for any reason. But also during those 4 years, the school administrators are required to assess that teacher multiple times. If a school system evaluates and monitors a teacher for 4 consecutive years and still chooses to hire them for a 5th year, then they have decided that this teacher is a keeper, and career status is conferred.
Upon earning career status, a teacher is entitled to due process rights if they are terminated. Teachers may be terminated for any of 15 grounds listed in the statute. All that is required is that proof must be shown that the teacher has violated one or more of these grounds. I will refer you to this link: http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/pubs/electronicversions/pdfs/leps19.pdf
If administrators are doing their job and the violation is legitimate, there will always be proof. Teachers are evaluated 2-4 times formally, and once at the end of every year as a summative evaluation for the entire year. That is more than sufficient documentation to prove justification for termination.
It should also be said that, according to the statute, teachers are held to a higher standard in matters or moral behavior. This includes use of alcohol, conviction of a felony, or even the much broader category of immorality.
Career status is unequivocally NOT a guarantee of a job for life. Teachers are tasked with dealing with young people every day. Some of those students are children of influential people, even board members or politicians. Teachers also teach sometimes sensitive material. Career status came about in order to protect teachers from having their career and livelihood threatened due to the nature of their work.
July 1, 2014 at 11:53 am
Richard Bunce says:
There are too many government regulations on the employer employee relationship... certainly should not be regulation to give certain groups of employees such as government school teachers additional protections particularly when it is just payment for their reliable Democratic party votes.
July 2, 2014 at 6:36 pm
Bill Worley says:
Richard, comments like yours are nothing more than trolling.
July 3, 2014 at 11:13 am
Richard Bunce says:
Three undeniable truths look like trolling to you... noted.
July 1, 2014 at 1:21 pm
Curt Budd says:
Is Ms Martinez a paid spokeswoman for Phil Berger or TomTillis? Because this sounds like the same out-of-touch with current classroom propoganda that they have been spewing.
What is this obsession with tenure anyway? Why is doing away with it the "cure-all" for education? What you are implying is that there is this rash of bad teachers out there that are causing a downfall in education. What is your proof of that? Have you visited classrooms? Do you have children that had to deal with bad teachers? The statistics quoted in the article have no relevance? EOG tests were "re-normed" this year so there is no data with which to compare. (ps I am a 16 yr veteran AP Statistics teacher at one of the highest performing schools in the state/country). And dont get me started on how these EOG tests are poor representations of the curriculums being taught.
Besides the "test data" that you and GOP leadership badly misuse, have you considered that the students themselves may be showing up in classrooms less prepared for success? Whether by immigration, or homes where parents are working more hours, less time/interest/emphasis on education in the home, changing technology, basically a changing society for any of the issues education is facing? Again, why are you convinced that its poor teaching? Do I 100% agree with the methods used always by my peers or my sons teachers? No. But I can say without hesitation that VERY little exception, that the hard work and dedication that this group of professionals show on a daily basis should NOT be where our legislature or the general public should be worrying about.
Sincerely,
Curt Budd
NBCT Mathematics
July 1, 2014 at 5:03 pm
Gayle Stone says:
It's really too bad Ms Martinez didn't do better research before publishing her opinion. Did she even read the statute? Tenure for teachers does not mean teachers cannot be fired. It means that after a three-year probationary period a teacher cannot be fired capriciously. Compared to the "business world" that seems to be the gold standard for most hack jobs like Ms Martinez' piece, a three year probationary period is really stringent. In my experience, most companies have a 90 day "probationary" period during which time a new employee can be terminated without much explanation. After that, specific processes must be followed to document the reason for termination. Very similar to what tenure provides except the three year (for teachers) vs three month (for corporate employees) probationary period. If this piece is indicitative of Ms Martinez' reporting skills, she probably is not the best indicator of how well the business world fires poor performance employees.
