Teacher Tenure

One of the ballot measures on November 8 would change the way California tenures teachers. It would extend the period from 2 - 5 years. At the same time it would allow a teacher during that period to be dismissed with two bad reviews.

The common perceptions about the public schools and their inability to be successful with children are filled with misinformation. For example, IMHO, the teacher training that is currently done in the state does a pretty good job of training teachers. Yet, there is constant chatter about how lousy schools of education are. By implication then the schools train lousy teachers. I am not sure where this urban myth got started but in my experience it is simply wrong. The teacher training programs in independent colleges, UC and CSU are on the whole pretty good. If they are so good why do we have a) turnover (compared to people in other professions) and b) so many lousy teachers?

A) The teaching profession is a strange one. First, as opposed to most other professions teachers are less autonomous. Second, while medicine involves a lot of study and then a long apprenticeship (intern and residency) teaching requires a relatively short education program (about a year) and apprenticeship (about a year). At the same time, there are numerous ways to get into the profession without going through the process. You can do a program based in a school district or simply enter on something approaching an emergency credential. How would you like it if your surgeon had been able to enter the profession on a similar whim? My guess is that the alternative programs have higher turnover and lesser quality. There is some reason, however, to have the ease of entry for at least some positions - you get a lot of young graduates who want to offer some kind of service for a couple of years before going on to something else professionally.

B) Why do we have so many lousy teachers? To the extent that we have lousy teachers it is in part because of the ease of entry (which the Governor's proposal would abate to some degree) and in part because of the absolute iron clad control of the unions. Want to make the profession better, decrease the uniformity in the system - allow a range of educational practices to be tried.

So what should one do about the Governor's proposal to extend teacher tenure? (Proposition 74)? The lengthening of the probationary period would make a marginally better system for the selection and retention of teachers - although again one wonders how tenure in other professions works - does anyone but judges have the equivalent of tenure? But more important would be to lessen the iron clad control of teacher unions (you can help to do that by eliminating public employee unions absolute control of dues for political purposes - Proposition 75) and by assuring that large monolithic school districts get divided and every student has a range of educational options (introduce market based choices).

The standard in any election should be vote no unless there is an overwhleming reason to vote yes. But on this one there is also the inclination to look at the marginal step. Without some greater effort at changing some of the other constraints - this does not seem compelling.