Proposition 74
This proposition is known as the Put the Kids First Act. Proposition 74 will change the time a teacher must work prior to receiving tenure. Currently, in California, there is a two-year probationary period. Proposition 74 would change that two years to five, for any teacher whose probationary period began in the 2003-2004 fiscal year, or after. In addition, it would eliminate a teacher's right to an administrative hearing before being terminated, regardless of tenure.
Under Proposition 74, if a permanent employee (tenured teacher, in this case) is found to have two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations, that teacher may be removed based upon those evaluations. The terminated teacher may then request an administrative hearing. However, current law requires that a teacher be granted an administrative hearing prior to dismissal. Prop. 74 would change that.
Proponents, mostly conservatives, say this will allow them to lose problem teachers. Opponents say it's payback. They say teachers are being "punished" because they refused to let Governor Schwarzenneger get away with reneging on his campaign promise to put education first. They also say the real problems are lack of needed classroom materials, too few teachers per student, and generally inadequate government support of public education.
So who is right? This one's not easy. Before discussing the right and wrong of it, let's look at the concerns behind the proposed changes. We are told, by the Governor, that we can improve our education system by making it easier to fire teachers and by requiring that they work longer to earn tenure. Currently, there are only two states that require the same five-year probationary period that the Governor is suggesting: Indiana and Missouri. There are also three states that have a one-year probation period: Connecticut, North Dakota and South Carolina. Proponents of Prop. 74 say a longer probation period is necessary to improve the quality of teachers, which will improve the quality of education. If that's true, we should see some correlation between schools with longer probation periods and better overall student performance.
But according to the 2003 statistics on state-by-state performance levels for elementary school students, the three states with a one-year probation period ranked higher than the two states with the five-year probation period. Middle school rankings for 2003 show slightly different results. One of the one-year probation period states (South Carolina) scored below Indiana and Missouri, but the other two states with a one-year probation period (Connecticut and North Dakota) still bested the states requiring a full five-years on the job before offering tenure. Granted, this is not a scientific study. But it does suggest that the length of a teacher's probation period is not linked to student performance.
The second issue being cited by proponents of Prop. 74 is that it will allow for easier removal of problem teachers. Again, let's start with what we have now. Currently, a teacher may be removed from the classroom for exactly the same infractions the new measure, if passed, would include. In other words, the causes for dismissal of a teacher will not be changed by Prop. 74. What will be changed, should Prop. 74 pass, is the number of evaluations a teacher will be subjected to (Prop. 74 would require five evaluations during the same time period that teachers currently undergo two evaluations). This means that in addition to using school funds to conduct additional teacher evaluations, the time between evaluations is shorter. While that may sound like a good idea, it presupposes that more evaluations, closer together, will weed out problem teachers. But is that true?
If a teacher is guilty of immoral conduct, dishonesty, illegal activity or any of the other problem behaviors that could lead to dismissal, would a formal evaluation actually be required to bring the problem to the attention of the appropriate authorities? I think not. Rather, reports from unhappy students and/or parents would likely be the way in which school authorities would discover any infraction sufficient to warrant dismissal. That being the case, it's hard to imagine needing to more than double evaluation exercises in order to find out which teachers are really causing problems.
What's most troubling to me, however, is that Prop. 74 will strip teachers of the one protection mechanism they have for preventing unfair dismissal based upon ideological differences. The current law reads that "immoral or unprofessional conduct" is at the top of the list of items that warrant dismissal. This is not new to Prop. 74. However, the current law has a check and balance feature that prevents one person's morality from infringing on somebody else's: a tenured teacher is entitled to an administrative hearing prior to dismissal. This allows the teacher time to present his/her case and requires that presumably objective third parties are privy to whatever breach of morality the teacher might be accused of. This is extremely important because morality and professionalism are subjective terms. One person's definition may differ quite greatly from another's.
If Prop. 74 passes, however, a teacher may be dismissed simply because he receives two consecutive evaluations claiming that said teacher is not up to the evaluator's personal "moral" standards. The potential for abuse here should be obvious.
Proposition 74 is presented as a measure aimed at taking care of kids, but it's really nothing more than an administrative action that will cost money to implement (how much, no one seems to know) and does nothing tangible to improve the quality of education our children will receive. --Laurie
Under Proposition 74, if a permanent employee (tenured teacher, in this case) is found to have two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations, that teacher may be removed based upon those evaluations. The terminated teacher may then request an administrative hearing. However, current law requires that a teacher be granted an administrative hearing prior to dismissal. Prop. 74 would change that.
Proponents, mostly conservatives, say this will allow them to lose problem teachers. Opponents say it's payback. They say teachers are being "punished" because they refused to let Governor Schwarzenneger get away with reneging on his campaign promise to put education first. They also say the real problems are lack of needed classroom materials, too few teachers per student, and generally inadequate government support of public education.
So who is right? This one's not easy. Before discussing the right and wrong of it, let's look at the concerns behind the proposed changes. We are told, by the Governor, that we can improve our education system by making it easier to fire teachers and by requiring that they work longer to earn tenure. Currently, there are only two states that require the same five-year probationary period that the Governor is suggesting: Indiana and Missouri. There are also three states that have a one-year probation period: Connecticut, North Dakota and South Carolina. Proponents of Prop. 74 say a longer probation period is necessary to improve the quality of teachers, which will improve the quality of education. If that's true, we should see some correlation between schools with longer probation periods and better overall student performance.
But according to the 2003 statistics on state-by-state performance levels for elementary school students, the three states with a one-year probation period ranked higher than the two states with the five-year probation period. Middle school rankings for 2003 show slightly different results. One of the one-year probation period states (South Carolina) scored below Indiana and Missouri, but the other two states with a one-year probation period (Connecticut and North Dakota) still bested the states requiring a full five-years on the job before offering tenure. Granted, this is not a scientific study. But it does suggest that the length of a teacher's probation period is not linked to student performance.
The second issue being cited by proponents of Prop. 74 is that it will allow for easier removal of problem teachers. Again, let's start with what we have now. Currently, a teacher may be removed from the classroom for exactly the same infractions the new measure, if passed, would include. In other words, the causes for dismissal of a teacher will not be changed by Prop. 74. What will be changed, should Prop. 74 pass, is the number of evaluations a teacher will be subjected to (Prop. 74 would require five evaluations during the same time period that teachers currently undergo two evaluations). This means that in addition to using school funds to conduct additional teacher evaluations, the time between evaluations is shorter. While that may sound like a good idea, it presupposes that more evaluations, closer together, will weed out problem teachers. But is that true?
If a teacher is guilty of immoral conduct, dishonesty, illegal activity or any of the other problem behaviors that could lead to dismissal, would a formal evaluation actually be required to bring the problem to the attention of the appropriate authorities? I think not. Rather, reports from unhappy students and/or parents would likely be the way in which school authorities would discover any infraction sufficient to warrant dismissal. That being the case, it's hard to imagine needing to more than double evaluation exercises in order to find out which teachers are really causing problems.
What's most troubling to me, however, is that Prop. 74 will strip teachers of the one protection mechanism they have for preventing unfair dismissal based upon ideological differences. The current law reads that "immoral or unprofessional conduct" is at the top of the list of items that warrant dismissal. This is not new to Prop. 74. However, the current law has a check and balance feature that prevents one person's morality from infringing on somebody else's: a tenured teacher is entitled to an administrative hearing prior to dismissal. This allows the teacher time to present his/her case and requires that presumably objective third parties are privy to whatever breach of morality the teacher might be accused of. This is extremely important because morality and professionalism are subjective terms. One person's definition may differ quite greatly from another's.
If Prop. 74 passes, however, a teacher may be dismissed simply because he receives two consecutive evaluations claiming that said teacher is not up to the evaluator's personal "moral" standards. The potential for abuse here should be obvious.
Proposition 74 is presented as a measure aimed at taking care of kids, but it's really nothing more than an administrative action that will cost money to implement (how much, no one seems to know) and does nothing tangible to improve the quality of education our children will receive. --Laurie
posted by LA Fosner at 11:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home