« Education News for Thursday, March 8 | Main | Do American Schools Really Need NCLB 2.0? (Dan Lips) »
March 08, 2007
Good intentions and net results
I've been considering some points raised by NYC Educator (hat tip: last week's Carnival of Education, hosted by Dr. Homeslice). First, some background: a post he wrote last year listing some of the more egregious examples he has personally seen of truly bad teachers got picked up anew by Joe Williams, then ricocheted around the 'sphere (check out the thread at Joanne Jacobs, but be warned: if you suffer from clinical depression, keep the meds handy because you may need them).
Of course, such extreme examples generate discussion of personnel policies, which then lead to criticism of the teachers union. A loud and proud unionist, NYC Educator took the time to put together a follow-up post:
Lots of people read pieces about bad teachers and ask, "Why can't we fire them?"
It's a pretty good question. The answer, of course, is you can certainly fire them. That assumes, of course, that someone in the system wants them fired (I no longer labor under that particular assumption).
"Why is it so difficult?" they ask.
It should be difficult because you're proposing to deprive people of their livelihoods. Would excellent teachers get fired if those who directed schools could just do whatever the hell they liked? It certainly appears so.
I agree with NYC Educator that good teachers deserve protection. I further agree that employees under threat of termination--even those accused of the sort of malfeasance he alleges in his original post--deserve a "vigorous defense" (his words). But there are a variety of problems with the line of thinking in the quote presented above. First, it's factually accurate to say that such teachers can be fired. But from a practical standpoint, it's nearly impossible; as illustrated here, it can take years and tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars in legal fees to get a single teacher dismissed.
Which leads to my second point: NYC Educator tacitly blames unidentified individuals in the system for not summoning the will to get rid of incompetent teachers, but frankly, who can blame them for feeling a bit demoralized by it all? If it takes so much time and money to get rid of a single teacher no matter how bad he or she may be, I don't think anyone should be surprised that administrators are loath to pursue such an obese process.
Of course, the real issue here is tenure. Let's go elsewhere in NYC Educator's post:
I think it’s an important point that we don’t hire teachers, and it’s equally important to note that we have nothing to do with granting of tenure either. Pointing fingers at us is disingenuous.
It’s the union’s job to represent its members. It’s as simple as that. That’s what they’re there for. The notion that anyone facing removal from a job does not merit a vigorous defense is un-American.
It may be true that the unions have no hand in the granting of tenure, but there's no denying their efforts to keep tenure the way it is. Illinois reporter Scott Reeder offers a wealth of information on how his state's unions are devoted to protecting state tenure laws. And there's a reason the New York Daily News ran a series of editorials back in 2005 practically begging NYC Educator's union, the UFT, to make some contractual changes to allow principals to more easily fire incompetent teachers. Go back to NYC Educator's original post from last year and check out his hair-raising list of incompetence and, in some cases, outright criminal behavior. Like it or not, they find shelter in the very laws and organization he defends. Until tenure becomes something more than a rubber stamp and the firing process in New York City becomes a little more realistic, I don't think his situation will improve a lot.
Again, I agree with NYC Educator that teachers deserve due process; longtime Edspresso readers will recall that I was quite critical of a New York charter school principal who came out swinging against a beloved teacher in an alleged fit of union-busting. And I think he agrees with me that bad teachers should be cut loose. My problem is that it presently takes little effort on the part of unfit teachers to escape punishment and termination. But NYC Educator's stance suggests that there's no way to facilitate the firing of bad teachers without putting their competent colleagues in harm's way. Countless other professions have struck the balance; it's entirely possible in education to fire the bad and retain the good. How? Let's turn to Steve Jobs, who of course recently came under fire for his comments on union-influenced personnel policies. In particular, let's zero in on one comment in particular that really raised the ire of the union:
Jobs compared schools to businesses with principals serving as CEOs.
"What kind of person could you get to run a small business if you told them that when they came in they couldn't get rid of people that they thought weren't any good?" he asked to loud applause during an education reform conference.
"Not really great ones because if you're really smart you go, 'I can't win.'"
What I think has been largely omitted amidst the piling on are Jobs's strong sentiments regarding personnel decisions, which he has said publicly that he considers his most important responsibility. And note his above reference to small businesses. As he says here, "A small company depends on great people much more than a big company does." And Jobs's "principal as CEO" model is particularly apt with New York chancellor Joel Klein pursuing the idea:
The idea is to make each principal "the CEO of the school instead of an agent of the bureaucracy," Klein says. More than 300 New York principals are signing performance contracts that give them more control in exchange for being accountable. Klein means business: "If your school gets a D or an F, I'm gonna fire your ass."
I would suggest that this is where the balance can be found. The way to protect the good and endanger the bad is to give principals incentive to do so. If principals are properly empowered--given greater autonomy to make decisions plus accountability for failure to improve--then they'll have the incentive and ability to both cleanse their schools of unfit teachers and protect and elevate their better educators. It seems to me NYC Educator's fears of good teachers being at risk would be most likely to occur with bad principals, hidebound and beholden to bureaucratic interests. Tie principals' success to that of the schools they run, and teachers--not to mention students--will be better off indeed.
One last thing. I hope it's clear that I'm not trying to pick a fight with NYC Educator, because I'm really not. His point of view is compelling, which is why I took the time to put together what I feel is a substantive response. And irrespective of his opposition to school choice, on this particular issue I don't think we're all that far apart.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.edspresso.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/1247
Comments
Ryan-- thanks for the hat tip as always.
On to the idea of school principals as CEO. This would be an apt and accurate metaphor of a principal if they were creating a product. It would be appropriate if they were producing a good or a service. Yet they are not producing any of those things. A principal is not a CEO and never will be. A CEO will never be a CEO. To make a comparison and expect a principal to be a CEO is ridiculous. That would mean that the principal actually has some kind of autonomy from central office, something that we all know is not true in any situation. Sadly, the closest I have seen to true principal autonomy comes out of charter schools, but even they are beholden to their own boards.
Interesting post. I disagree, but interesting post.
Posted by: Dr. Homeslice | March 9, 2007 04:34 PM
This would be an apt and accurate metaphor of a principal if they were creating a product. It would be appropriate if they were producing a good or a service. Yet they are not producing any of those things.
Education isn't a service?
That would mean that the principal actually has some kind of autonomy from central office, something that we all know is not true in any situation. Sadly, the closest I have seen to true principal autonomy comes out of charter schools, but even they are beholden to their own boards.
You acknowledge that charter school principals have greater authority--and as it so happens, KIPP schools extend their principals a lot of latitude over budgets and personnel matters, two particularly vital areas of school reform. I agree that most principals don't have CEO-like authority. But you seem to argue that this means they never will receive it. As the system is presently constitued (i.e. thoroughly intractable), I agree. But as the system is compelled to change through competition, this is one of several welcome reforms that might actually get forced through.
And as a side note, I don't believe a principal should have complete autonomy from his or her board. Just as CEOs are accountable to their boards of directors for the results they deliver, principals should absolutely be beholden to their higher-ups for bottom-line deliverables. School boards and administrators have every reason and right to expect results of principals--but they should give principals the breathing room and necessary autonomy to deliver those results.
Posted by: Ryan | March 9, 2007 05:11 PM
Interesting topic indeed. To whatever degree union contracts exist that make it practically impossible to fire incompetent, destructive teachers (and I suspect this is much more rare than some would suggest), this is the fault of both parties. Contracts are negotiated, and if a school district was so foolish or fainthearted as to accept a contract that allows harmful teachers lifetime employment, the fault lies, in no small measure, with them. Let us not forget that unions should exist to obtain fair treatment for their members in wages and due process, not to protect and perpetuate abject incompetence.
It would be interesting to know the exact figures relating to the numbers of teachers in America under union contracts as opposed to those who are not. In Texas, where I teach, there is no such thing as tenure. For the first three years of a teacher's contract, they may be fired for any or no reason. Thereafter, they have only the most rudimentary due process rights. Teachers, good or bad, can indeed be fired, and a dismissed teacher, with no paycheck coming in, scrambling to find another job, is not in a favorable position to pursue lengthy legal actions. Any Texas principal complaining that it's impossible to fire bad teachers is making a comment on his own competence and industry, not on the difficulty of firing teachers.
There are a great many reasons why the school-as-business metaphor is absurb and potentially destructive, but one of the most obvious is that no principal or teacher has real control over outcomes. This kind of control is something that they will never receive, never, because we are dealing with human beings, not toasters. In business, the CEO can hire and fire as he pleases until he builds a work force capable of assembling his toasters to a high level of performance. But schools cannot pick and choose students to ensure a given level of performance. In the real world of education, we take our students as they are each year when they first come through the doors of our classrooms, and provide them the opportunity to travel as far down the road of educational progress (education is a lifelong process; toasters are assembled at a finite point in time) as they are willing to go in a year. If a student is unwilling to progress, we can't toss them out and seek out a better student.
Accountabiliy? Expect results? Sure. But we have to remember that all accountability and all expectations have to be based in reality. If ninety percent of the vehicles in the student parking lot of high school A are new BMW's, it would be reasonable to expect very high academic performance, would it not?
Posted by: Mike | March 14, 2007 10:05 AM
Mike, if it's true that "no principal or teacher has real control over outcomes," and that for whatever reason education is the only endeavor in which we can't measure improvement or progress, then I suggest it's equally true that there's no reliable indicator on teacher/principal performance, and therefore no real accountability is possible. And if no principal can determine that his or her students learn, then what's the objective of school?
I wouldn't mind seeing schools empowered to expel students who refuse to participate or who prevent others from learning. But there's a big difference between refusing to coddle kids who shouldn't be in school and cherry-picking a student population with the greatest potential for success. One doesn't necessarily mean the other.
And on one hand you state that CEOs can hire and fire until they get the workforce they want, but then dart over to poorly performing students. Do teachers make up a workforce, or don't they? And if incompetent teachers are in a school, should they be retained or fired?
That's the point of this post. While I agree that schools should not be compelled to enroll harmful students, they shouldn't be forced to hire or retain bad teachers, either. One of the single most important predictors of student success is teacher quality, and if principals can't improve teacher quality by firing bad teachers and replacing them with better teachers, then nobody should be surprised when student achievement continues to languish.
Posted by: Ryan | March 14, 2007 01:16 PM
Dear Ryan:
I think we agree upon more than you acknowledge. I'm not suggesting (nor did I suggest) that there are, or should be no indicators of teacher or school performance, or that bad teachers should be retained. Obviously, they should not. Competent principals can fire bad teachers, and do every day while upholding everyone's rights and while treating all involved with dignity. If a teacher is truly incompetent such that firing is mandatory, the evidence of that incompetence will be there for any competent teacher to observe and document.
In making a comparison between business and education, my primary point is, again, that educators don't have absolute control over outcomes. This does not mean that there is no accountability. In the public schools everyone is strictly accountable, from the superintendent to the lowest classroom teacher, and every employee of a school district is regularly evaluated. Even school boards may be evaluated and turned out of office at the next election.
If I have 20 students in a class, and provide the same learning opportunities for them all, even individualizing instruction (as I and most teachers do every day) for many, and ten students do their work and make progress and ten choose to do little and fail, am I a failure as a teacher? If my principal investigated and discovered that I made mistakes in grading, or didn't grade student papers, he would be right in disciplining me. But when he discovers that out of 30 assignments, the negligent ten turned in an average of five, how, exactly, is that my fault, and how am I to be held to account?
Get rid of bad teachers? Absolutely. Accountability? Absolutely, but those systems are already in place, they work well (or can be made to work well), and they don't involve mandatory, high stakes tests (I know you didn't mention these--it's an analogy) or trying to turn schools into toaster factories.
Posted by: Mike | March 14, 2007 06:09 PM
I argue that teachers who have no business being in the classroom are using existing tenure laws and union protection to avoid being fired. You argue outright that the system is working fine or can be made to work better without giving principals greater autonomy. If teacher accountability systems are already in place and work well, then what's up with this?
That was the whole point of this post: if it takes years and tens of thousands of dollars to get rid of a single incompetent teacher, reform is needed. I'd say the space of disagreement is wider than you let on.
Posted by: Ryan | March 27, 2007 12:06 PM
