The definition of Tenure - Merrian Webster
: the act, right,
manner, or term of holding something (as a landed property, a position, or an
office); especially : a status granted after a trial period to a teacher that
gives protection from summary dismissal
********************
I read in the Ledger
again today about the Governor's plan to “reform” tenure. I decided to lookup
the exact meaning of the word.
Based on that definition
it appears to me that the tenure
“reform” plan is not to “reform” tenure but instead to eliminate it.
Awarding five year
contracts is not at all tenure as it is defined.
“Reform” evidently means
to allow the awarding of consecutive, short term contracts granted at the
employer's whim. That certainly is not cited in the definition of “tenure”.
The Ledger went on to
praise the Newark School Superintendent (Cami
Anderson) for her removing eighty “poorly performing” teachers from the
classroom.
It described her anguish
regarding tenure in that she was unable to readily dismiss “poorly performing”
teachers.
And could it be that some of her angst arises from the
fact that she and all superintendents in New Jersey have lost tenure and
therefore no one else should be tenured? I’m just asking!
Needless to say the
Star-Ledger editor and she both fully support the elimination of teacher tenure and seniority rights in New
Jersey Public Schools.
I looked up some
statistics pertaining to the Newark School System.
“Newark Public Schools, with 75 schools, 7,000 employees and a student
population of 39,440, is the largest and one of the oldest school systems in
New Jersey. Its origin dates back to 1676 and Barringer High School in Newark’s
North Ward, is the third oldest public high school in the nation.”
A little fourth grade math tells me that eighty out
of seven thousand is 1.1%.
So let me get this straight!
We should eliminate teachers rights for the 98.9% so
as to enable the easy dismissal of the 1.1% of “poorly performing” teachers?
Let's pretend I was teaching a class and 1.1% of the
children failed a test. Should I then justifiably punish the entire class for
the poor performance of those few?
Do you think I might be called to the principal’s
office if I did?
Suppose I were to tell him that I punished everyone
because just punishing the 1.1% was far too difficult for me to do? How do you
think that excuse would work?
I'm sure you get my point.
The straw man issue of the expense and difficult of
removing “poor performing” tenured staff which is constantly cited as
justification for “tenure reform”.
Please take a moment to read my article of Sunday, February 19,
2012 - “$100,000 Questions About
Tenure” (which I have added below) and you will see what I mean.
Teachers have spent fifty years, legitimately
building the profession into one with a modicum of respect, decent wages and
benefits. Now within just a few years those gains are being er
oded and
destroyed, all without protest.
In spite of the Governor's claim of a powerful NJEA,
it has done little in response to the current attack on teachers. The union has
been docile and completely ineffectual at best.
Trust me, all this is a guise to lay the ground work
for the complete privatization of public education in New Jersey and throughout
the country.
The loss of tenure and seniority will further weaken
and destroy what is left of the teaching profession.
When
privatization is finally accomplished the corporations which will run the
schools will then not have to deal with teacher rights and tenure issues. They
will be able to hire and fire at will, pay low wages and reap great rewards for
themselves and their executives.
*************
$100,000 Questions
About Tenure
The constant cry from
those wishing to eliminate tenure is that the cost of firing a tenured teacher
is extreme (the claim is up to $100,000).
Why does it cost so much to remove a poorly performing, tenured
teacher?
Because lawyers charge school districts exorbitant fees in order to carry out the process.
Instead of ending tenure for all teachers, the majority of whom are
doing well, why not limit the
cost of firing the poor ones?
We should look at capping the outrageous legal fees that are paid by
school systems each year.
The State is certainly very good at capping all other aspects of school
district spending why not cap these?
If this was done, some
questions might arise.
Would lawyers take
tenure cases filed by school districts at reduced fees?
Last year, New Jersey admitted 3037 lawyers to the Bar.
Estimated job openings were 844 leaving a surplus of 2193 . The median wage for New Jersey lawyers is $43.84 per hour.
*
If the law of supply and
demand works, it should be easy to hire lawyers to pursue these actions.
Another question might
then be, would districts be able to obtain the “best” lawyers if legal costs
were capped?
Well, if the charges
brought against an individual are valid and well documented, I don't think
districts need Johnny Cochran to win the case!
Another cost saving measure might be, having the State hiring a group of salaried lawyers to be
leased to school districts at nominal
rates. These lawyers could then pursue tenure charge cases instead of having
districts spend outlandish sums by hiring independent law firms.
If the real motivation
behind ending tenure is only so that “poor” teachers can be fired without huge
cost why not investigate these alternatives?
(My own opinion, this
is not the real motivation for the elimination of tenure.)
PS
Does anyone really think that the Governor (who is a lawyer) and the
legislature (which is in majority composed of lawyers) would ever even suggest
much entertain these types of action?
It's much
easier and more fun to beat up on teachers!
