This past week, our district was not exempt from the RIF’s that have been making the news in education. We are losing four young, bright first-year teachers who have brought enthusiasm and innovation to their jobs.
In the background are some more “veteran” teachers who have refused to change with the times. In spite of the changes in society and technology, they teach the same way they have taught for years, holding on to their jobs out of habit rather than passion. They move through the curriculum by rote, paying little attention to whether or not the students are responding. Their evaluations haven’t been top notch, but their jobs are safe.
Then there are a few teachers who simply don’t get it. They want to be “friends” with the kids, or they care more about the content than the kids. The discipline referrals coming out of their classrooms are numerous and would be unnecessary with better management. Their evaluations haven’t been top notch either, but their jobs are safe.
I know that this is a very, very difficult question – especially in these hard economic times. (Maybe the question should be, "Is the State making the best budget decisions right now?" – but that's a different discussion.) However, with all of the pressure being put on teachers to meet professional standards through reflection and best practices, shouldn’t the teachers who are doing that have some advantage?
Good question, Kim. Yes, perhaps teacher evaluations should be used when deciding who to RIF. Here’s a major snag.
As a former administrator, it’s easier to use an established standard, such as seniority, to RIF an undifferentited aggregate of employees than to take an unknown risk of law suits by using less established criteria.
As a former community organizer, a counter to that common risk aversive use of seniority is to make that a higher risk action by parents of students suing to gain the instruction of their children by teachers with the best performance evaluations.
I don’t know of such successful legal action, thus leaving seniority as the safest and least costly administrative action, irrespective of results for students and other budget considerations.
It would be interesting to watch such a suit brought to court. If it happens, teachers, including unions, should avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest in formulating the action. Yes?
The point I was trying to make by mentioning evaluations in my original entry was to point out that young teachers who are generally recognized (by students, parents, admin and other staff)as doing a really good job are being RIF’d, while older teachers who are generally recognized as “not meeting standard” (by the same constituencies) are keeping their jobs. It was more metaphorical than anything else. Not only have I not actually seen anyone else’s evaluations, I don’t believe for a minute that evaluations should be used as a criteria for deciding who gets to stay and who gets to go. But as every teacher knows, what we hear from our kids, what we hear from other teachers in the staff lounge, what we see in the work assigned by other teachers, and what we notice when we see these other teachers interacting with their students gives us all a pretty fair idea of who is doing their jobs well and who isn’t.
Favoritism exists everywhere. For anyone trying to find a job, “who you know” is just as important as “what you know,” and if the boss likes you, your job is probably more secure than the guy who does it well but is unpleasant to have around. I agree that administrators might play favorites. But so might a cadre of master teachers. Or the school board.
Obviously, I don’t know what the answer is. I just know that the way it’s happening isn’t what’s best for our students.
@Brian: I think your cadre of master teachers is key…I agree. But the rub is this: who chooses the master teachers? Admin? Prom-royalty-style vote? As a relatively early service teacher myself, I have not had the chance to be in many other teachers’ rooms to see what actually happens (so I try hard to resist making assumptions, though I still do) and worry that if this biennium didn’t get me, the next one might.
Kim, you mentioned evaluations a couple of times, but evaluations have little to do with actual performance. The assistant principal assigned to evaluate me has done a single observation of me this year. We need a meaningful evaluation process that will hold us all accountable every year that we teach. I think everyone should be on a professional growth plan from their first year to their last year. We should have to show student work after every observation, and demonstrate that growth has occurred.
I agree with Tom that we need the security that seniority clauses provide. Remember, Plan 3 says you work until you are 65. But we also need a system for evaluation that prevents people from simply showing up year after year. A rational evaluation system should help you be a better teacher, and if you are unwilling to put in the effort to get better, it should make it uncomfortable for you to continue.
As a union representative I have defended the rights of teachers I knew were just showing up. I have also asked my principal why he was tolerating substandard performance from a colleague.
So I think the problem is not seniority clauses, but a system that asks administrators, who have self-selected themselves out of classroom teaching, to evaluate teachers. I think the solution is to create an evaluation system that is based on the demonstration of professional growth on a yearly basis, mentored by a cadre of master teachers.
“Those four bright young things will find other jobs”… Not so fast. As a graduate student about to earn my teaching license, I’m here to tell you that unless you’re ready to move to Alaska or Texas, there are no jobs.
Thanks for asking a brave question, Kim. I think you’re right–there has to be some balance between strict seniority and “best qualified.”
Here’s a story: Back in the early 80s, when the auto industry was in crisis, we had a 3-year downturn in population and had to lay off teachers. We did it strictly by seniority–and there was no “highly qualified teacher” language, so anybody who could technically fill a job got moved, to preserve seniority rights. It was a giant Festival of Bumping.
My best teacher buddy, who had been teaching Phys Ed for 10 years, got moved to a Chemistry spot (because she had an undergraduate minor in General Science). And the first-year Chem teacher lost his job. It was a miserable year for her, two days ahead of the kids and dealing with parents who saw her (rightfully) as “the gym teacher who’s trying to teach Chemistry.” And a bad year for him, too, as he was unemployed. Both of them felt like failures.
Later, she was a national Disney Teacher, and he was Teacher of the Year, both in the district, and for the state Science Teachers Association. Clearly, these were excellent teachers. But strictly applied seniority rules can make mincemeat of common sense in teacher assignments.
I’ve been wondering the exact same thing, Kim, having watched a colleague get riffed right before my eyes (Literally! The HR guy came in during a meeting and took her away!) while other, less-deserving teachers stayed on. But I honestly don’t think we should base riffing on performance. People need security, and to think that you only have a job at the pleasure of your supervisor would make an already stressful profession almost unbearable. On the other hand, I think districts need to ensure that teachers are performing the way they should. Many don’t. My district, for example, had a teacher who was underperforming. They followed the agreement made with the association and worked with the teacher to try to get some improvement. Eventually I was brought in to help her. She watched me teach, I watched her teach, and we had meetings for most of a school year. No improvement. But then, instead of firing her like they should have, they took the easy way out. They traded a letter of recommendation for a letter of resignation. Now she works elsewhere. If the teachers in your school are as bad as you describe, they should go. But not by the riffing process; by the firing process.
I might have miscommunicated… Their innovations are very welcome at my school. They were RIF’d because they lack seniority, not because they are underappreciated. Unfortunately, with all the lay-offs across the state, I’m not so sure that they will be able to find replacement jobs very easily.
I do agree that we would run into an entirely different set of problems if we based the RIF decisions solely on evaluations, but maybe we could come up with a system that could utilize student, parent, peer, and supervisor evaluations along with solid achievement data.
Yes, they should. But there’s also the teacher whose evaluations haven’t been top-notch because their supervisor doesn’t like their style, even though the kids learn.
Those four bright young things will find other jobs, probably in places where their innovations will be more welcome.
Is it the best option in any industry (airlines being my thought when I read that headline)?
Yes. They should. And yet.