The large public school systems benefit from tenure as much as teachers do. Imagine if every teacher decided to jump from system to system. This would be a nightmare for personnel and waste lots of money. Also, teachers would then be able to collect unemployment every summer since their job had no guarantee of renewal.

You raise a good point, Jay. The protection offered by tenure for university professors makes sense. Unless someone offers a strong reason to support tenure for elementary or high school teachers, I'm of the opinion that it does not make sense for these teachers.

Absolutely. Elementary & Secondary School Teachers should NOT receive ANY tenure, particularly after only "proving" themselves over a mere 2-year period. It breeds overconfidence, arrogance, lackadaisical approach to the job, and a general decline in the quality of Public School Education. This is based on personal experiences and not simply conjecture.

Regrettably, politics raises it's ugly head even in Elementary schools. Teachers who do not march in step with Administrators and/or Union Reps. are often subject to subtle punishments. Removing the tenure element provides further empowerment for the bully bureaucrats. I would suggest expanding the vesting component and enhancing the continuing education part but abandoning tenure for primary and secondary school teachers seems to me to be a rather extreme approach.

The issues usually involve issues outside curriculum like school safety, work hours, and especially student advocacy. When an elementary teacher advocates for an individual educational plan that "cost money" and administrators / principals say no. If there was no tenure the teacher would cave quickly or loose their job.

I think all teachers should be required to have a Master's Degree in Education. They need to raise the bar. The standard for tenure should be at least 10 years on the job and then have the opportunity to meet with a Review Board to determine tenure status. The Review Board should factor in class performance on standardized tests. If you have been on the job for 10 years, and your students are below the average, there is no way a tenure should be automatic.

We need better quality teachers in the Public School System. Making it easy to become a teacher is reflected in the quality of education. The barrier for entry needs to be raised and instead of hiring anyone who meets the minimum qualifications, you need to hire quality over quantity.

People with a Bachelors Degree can become a teacher with a certificate. I don't see how that qualifies them to be a teacher. They should be raising salaries for teachers and hiring those with advanced degrees.

Without tenure(job security) you would lose the brightest and best teachers to other occupations as they could then be fired/reassigned at will. If you put in the time to be at a school of your liking and then came across an administrator who personally does not like you or who wants to get their "friends" in that school they could simply just get rid of you without cause. THIS WOULD BE A DISASTER with many lawsuits flying in both directions

Observing the public school system as it is today, no teachers should have tenure. Old ideas are embedded in the systems, their is no incentative to question or pursue a global economy , critical thinking has gone out the window. Motivation needs to be stimulated and nothing else will stimulate but the idea that your results will create your pay.

From a practical standpoint, it would be hard to attract qualified and dedicated teachers if tenure were not an option. There have to be positive aspects in teaching to offset the negative realities of relatively low wages, bureaucratic demands and societal problems that teachers encounter on a daily basis. Job security through tenure is one such incentive. Teaching is a difficult job - one that I would never want to do. I would rather reward teachers than penalize them.

The biggest testing scandal in Maryland--outside the Navy Academy, that is--occurred in Montgomery County a few years back when non-tenured teachers were intimidated by their principal into changing answers on the Maryland School Performance Assessment--that principal had a staff entirely of untenured young teachers, none of whom felt she could speak up.

No tenure for anyone. The idea behind keeping your job is that yu are good at it and tenure only gaurantees that many incompetent teachers remain on payroll. A teacher who would be fired for holding a different viewpoint on an issue stands a good chance of winning an unlawful dismissal lawsuit. I can't understand why teachers or professors should hold some "special" employment status.

Tenure is not what it seeems and this is a phony issue. I know college and secondary teachers that have been fired. Tenure means they have to have just cause ( you still can be laid off ) for performance or attendance issues just like the just cause in private settings with a union contract or a signed contract with an employee. Even in companies that don't have unions or peronal contracts they will seek a just cause reason to avoid discrimantion claims and unemployment costs.. I admit there is some hard work involved in firing people in union or tenure or personal contract cases but I have done it and it is not impossible...Jay does not understand the concept...to allow an agency to fire someone at the wim of a administrator is putting too much faith in the quality of teacher administators or bosses for that matter...

There are other reasons to support tenure. Our teachers are doing a vitally important job for lousy pay, and good ones are always in short supply. I have little sympathy for fat, lazy, tenured college profs, but the primary teachers in the trenches should have that incentive -- we'll attract better teachers that way.

My criterion: grant tenure to the GOOD teachers, not the ones in the job longest. Incentivize performance, not staying power.

There are some misconceptions among these comments. Tenure means that in the first two years of employment, a teacher can be fired without the employer showing cause. After being granted tenure, a teacher can still be fired, but the employer must show cause and the teacher gets a vigorous defense from their teachers association, (union). Tenured or not, all teachers have a contract with the employer. It does not bind them to stay forever, but they must advise the employer by a reasonable time, if they plan to leave. That does not qualify them for unemployment in the summer.

I don't think we should generalize that ALL tenured teachers are lazy and are doing their job only to get a steady paycheck. Honestly, I think tenure is an attractive deal to get quality teachers on staff. As a teacher myself, I have had to go through rigorous analysis to be tenured.
However, I do think that unsatisfactory teachers are not held accountable for their actions. It is up to a principal and staff to document these teachers. Unfortunately, I have seen first hand how an incompetent teacher does what they want because a principal would not stand up to her. Once the union is called, it is a lot of legal issues that arise. To some, keeping these teachers is less hassle than firing them.

Tenure is something that is a touchy subject. I am a student in Spanish with a concentration in Education, which means that I am receiving the training to teach Spanish. I like the idea of tenure because it is something that many teachers strive for. I know that there are many things that I have learned in college that would work well in a classroom, but I cannot try them or make my voice heard until I have tenure for risk of being fired.
Tenure is something that should be awarded to teachers that are doing a good job, but how do you measure a good job on a state-wide level. If MSA achievement is the level, do you say that an increase by x% is what you need, because schools are all different. Tenure is something that should be earned but I feel that it is needed because many of my classmates are nervous about trying new things because of the idea of being easily fired, and by the time that we receive our tenure, we will be burnt out.
Many teachers on the other hand, should not have tenure. I know of one example that is completely and utterly a disgrace to the education field. There was a teacher in Howard County that was removed from her post due to racism in the classroom. Because she had tenure, she was moved to another school inside of the system. When the behavior appeared again, she was suspended pending an investigation. The teacher then proceeded to sue the school system for racism against her, and one over 1 million dollars. This teacher had evidence against her that showed that she was being racist but because of her tenure, she was just moved to another school in the system. I know that this is an extreme case of this and that it doesn’t happen that often, but this was a situation where tenure shouldn’t have been had.
Teaching is one of the hardest professions, and tenure is one of the few things that we look forward to. Teachers receive very little money compared to the amount of work that we do, and tenure is the one thing that lets us know that we will have a job come August. I feel that tenure is something that should be given to people that have achieved State Teaching Certification, not someone with a B.A, Masters, or PhD in their field.
All that I can say personally on the matter is that I am becoming a teacher because that is what I want to do. I could do anything with my Spanish degree but I am choosing to educate the people that may run our Fortune 500 companies in the future. Even though I want to teach and it is my passion, if I had no job security added on to the salary issue, I probably wouldn’t become a teacher.

Tying teacher's pay to performance gives too much power to parents and students. There are those that do not want to be tought. Education leaders need to spend more time in schools to see what is actually going on. Kids are disrespectful and parents far too often side with their "baby".

Why stop there, bro? Let's eliminate universal free public schooling and give everybody a library card and Internet access. Think of the tax $ savings! Go ahead everybody - home school your kids.. since you can do it better, right? Teachers don't know it all - thank God the general public does!!

Eliminating tenure will probably cost too much. Teachers have a relatively low earnings ceiling, but they seem to be willing to trade that for job security. If we get rid of tenure, there will be fewer qualified people willing to take teaching jobs, and we'll have to raise salaries in order to get a better applicant pool. So it's only worthwhile if you believe that middle management administrators within a given school district can do a sufficiently decent job of evaluating teacher performance so as to ensure we're getting top value for the added salary expense. I'm skeptical of that, and I don't mean this as a slam on the administrators -- it's difficult to measure the performance of any one teacher given that so many other factors are relavant to the student outcomes. In any event, focusing on whether tenure is fair given political or academic pressures is the wrong way to decide the issue.

No, teachers should not be granted tenure. Tenure is used as a way to keep incompetent teachers from being fired, meaning they can continue to try and teach our children.

Sure, there's always a problem of incompatibilities between a classroom teacher and their administration. But, those issues are no differerent than in the private sector between and employee and his supervisor.

And don't try to tell us about the lousy pay. Average teachers are well compensated for 10 months of work plus their generous benefit packages.

The very best teachers should be paid more, but their union will not allow it. If someone has an issue with the "best" teachers not being paid enough, take it up with your union.

I love many of the comments made here. Tenure is a public or private school system's way of recognizing effectiveness in teaching and assuring the educator that once granted, they are protected from being fired without cause. Although protected it does not guarantee a teacher a job. Budgetary constraints and continued teacher effectiveness all factor into an educator retaining their position. In the state of Maryland it take two years to remove, with cause, a tenured teacher and a great deal of observation, assistance, and documentation takes place before this can happen.

Tenure affords a k-12 teacher the freedom to pursue, within the constraints of the sytem's curriculum, creative methods of meeting the varied needs of his/her students. In our changing political and educational research world, it allows teachers to be able to come to work knowing that they cannot be terminated due to the "flavor of the month" mentality the plagues some districts.

In Maryland in order to maintain your teaching licence (thus tenure) one must earn a mater's degree (including specific courses in education) within a prescribed time. All teachers in Maryland must pass a rigorous national exam in order qualify to teach.

Tenure is a minor issue. I have been teaching for 39 years and never felt protected by tenure.We are evaluated every year and formally written up every 2 years.It is real simple:You do your job correctly and you keep your job,just like all the other folks out there.

Teaching is a profession that is afforded very little respect considering that most veteran teachers hold at least a Master's degree yet receive miserably low pay compared to other professionals with the same level of education. In addition it seems as though the public at large and the media are empowered to criticize the job performance of teachers. Politicians use education for their own gain pushing unfunded mandates onto school systems then expect teachers to work for free to implement them. The last time I had a plumber visit my home I was billed for each fraction of an hour that he was working. In contrast I am expected to tutor after school for free and to grade papers at home on my own time. To make matters worse it doesn't matter whether or not the school you work at is actually successful you will be punished along with the schools that are failing. Attacking the tenure system is yet another misdirected attempt to blame teachers for student failure when the real culprit is society at large. When the economy forces both parents to work and single parents to work 2 jobs just to get by we end up with children raising themselves. As a result american students are experiencing a decline in basic skills that should be mastered before high school. Small wonder that more than 50% of new teachers quit the profession before reaching the 5 year mark.

Education is suppose to be about the kids and not about career climbing dimwits that can't cut it in the classroom.

Until you, Jay, experience the wrath of incompetent, unaccountable petty dictators in education, who pass themselves off as administrators...you just might to STFU about "normal workplace threats of biased bosses and office cliques"..."that every worker has to deal with." Education needs to above that nonsense.

Tenure is a good deal for the school system. It is just one way to help keep teachers in the system. The high turnover rate in years 1-5 is because teaching turns out to be a shockingly brutal job. I would be in favor of a longer 'probationary' period coupled with good professional development and mentoring for new teachers; say 4 years.

Then offer incentives (i.e. REALLY good pay) for outstanding teachers to teach in the most challenging schools. And yes, if it is hard to find teachers in some fields (math, science, languages, special ed) then we need to pay these teachers more!

Lousy, ineffective teachers can always be fired, it takes diligence by supervisors and administrators, but it can and should be done.

Let me answer your question with a question...
Would you like to have people working for you that have guaranteed jobs for life ? That's what "tenure" is. Anybody, anybody who has ever been a manager will say no.

Mr. Rizzo,
I have a Master's degree in education and enough additional credits to have earned a doctorate. Being well educated does not make you a good educator. I've learned far more from my on-the-job experience than I ever did in undergrad or graduate classes.
Steve, who are on earth wants to keep incompetent teachers on the job? What could possible be the motivation? Administrators want test scores; an incompetent teacher will not provide them. Parents want communication and support; incompetent teachers provide neither. Other teachers want colleagues they can collaborate with; incompetent teachers mean more work for them.
Two to three years is plenty of time to determine the compentence of a teacher. I don't really care about tenure (which I have), but it is disheartening to read these critical, inflammatory comments from individuals who do not know what they are talking about.

If you have never been a teacher please do not comment on what you know nothing about. It has always stung me when people who have no idea what it is like to go into the belly of the beast everyday and teach kids who value an iPod more than knowledge and Parents who either could care less or think they know more than the teacher but fail to have one college credit. Not to mention has dealt with a Principal, who thanks to Mr. Alonzo (since Dixon is gone I pray he will be next) has all power over EVERYTHING in his school with no in house checks and balances and can do whatever he or she wants, to whomever, at their whim... If you have never been a teacher, not know what any of these situations are like, especially in an "urban" school setting...I agree with jsharp...STFU!!!!

There is no reason why teachers should be given tenure. What makes teachers so special that they should be guaranteed a job for life? Nothing. There are way too many jobs in the government sector that allow people to stay employed no matter how awful they perform. Teachers like everyone else should be judged on their recent performance.

I am a tenured teacher, and union member, and I think the current system needs to be changed. Too many teachers get tenure and then sit back and waste the next 28 years until retirement.

I my 10 years as a teacher, I have seen teachers be absent for months at a time, even when they are known to be working other jobs, and not be fired. Its not because the admin in the building don't want to fire them, but they are protected by tenure!

In my opinion, tenure should be granted after teaching a set number of years (longer than 2!) AND earning a Masters. Right now you have 10 years to earn your Masters (someone earlier mentioned this, wanted to correct what he wrote), but even then, I've know of exceptions being made for people who didn't get their Masters in time but where tenured!

Even after someone has tenure, it should not be a promise of a job for life. Don't let the teachers who turn lazy with tenure rot the children's brains. There must be something necessary to maintain tenure, though I'm not sure what that might look like.

With all due respect to Andrew, I don't think having tenure correlates to the most qualified indivduals out of college choosing to teach over other professions. I think giving teachers tenure after two years does quite the opposite. It doesn't give teachers the incentive to perform above and beyond - which is needed to improve our educational system. As a recent college graduate, I can remember lots of colleagues choosing a degree in education because it was a fall back and they knew how in demand teaching was in the state and how they are "guranteed" a job for life after only two years. I think that sort of logic allows for underqualified and unmotivated people to lean towards teaching because where else can you hide your weaknesses after only two years on the job. Perform decently after two years and coast until retirement. We all had public teachers like that through our lifetime. My current job in business doesn't do that. If my department increases expenses and lowers revenue i am not protected from a slash in pay or from being let go. Why are teachers afforded this security blanket?

kteach -

Nobody, except for the teachers' union wants to keep incompetent teachers on the job. The parents don't, the school system doesn't, and probably their fellow teachers don't want them around either.

But, it is so hard to fire a teacher - there's that union thing - that the system just keeps shuffling them around from one school to the next.

The years of schooling in question are the developmental years. College? They've aleady chose their path. Elementary to college? Let's try to get them there.

Never been a parent or a teacher, but isn't someone responsible for at least guiding them? I will respect some teacher/professor's request that if you've never been there.....shut up.

As an Association Representative who processed grievances--successfully--I'd been administratively transferred several times. Principals resorted to that after trying every covert way in the book to get rid of me. Thanks to tenure, I got no worse than a change of environment,
still a questionalbe tactic.

Steve,
As my school's union rep, I can tell you that the union doesn't want incompetence in teachers anymore than the rest. It makes us all look bad. Honestly, it's not that hard to fire a teacher who's not performing well, it just takes time. You have to document attempts to help the teacher improve. This could be via mentoring/instructional coaching, co-teaching, or trying another grade. This seems reasonable to me in any profession. If there is no improvement, it can be done. The shuffling is often done at the teacher's request and is also logical. Just because you're struggling at a Title 1 middle school, doesn't mean you might not be successful at a non-Title 1 elementary school. Gross negligence is another story and there are grounds for immediate dismissal.

Mr. Hancock, you certainly know how to start a spirited discussion.

I taught and worked in education administration for 20 years and worked in a non-academic professional office for 12. The challenges of dealing with difficult bosses and colleagues and the on-the-job politics are much the same in teaching and in business.

I saw many abuses of tenure. One abuse that has not been mentioned is dismissal of developing teachers prior to tenure, to protect the school from being "stuck" with questionable teachers, when more years for evaluation and/or a time-flexible tenure procedure could have allowed those teachers more time to reach their potential.

The more common abuse -- teachers who underperform after achieving tenure status -- is a real problem at all educational levels. As a student and as a teacher, I saw dozens of examples of teachers who never should have been tenured.

I don't recall a single example of tenure protecting a teacher's right of self-expression -- that is, not a single example of a non-tenured teacher being dismissed for voicing a reasoned opinion, and not a single example of an administrator trying to dismiss a capable but opinionated faculty member but being constrained by tenure.

The capable teachers who spoke up about issues would have done so with or without tenure. Even without tenure, teachers would be protected from discrimination and/or arbitrary dismissal by the laws that protect all workers.

If Maryland abolished tenure for newly hired teachers but allowed already tenured teachers to keep that status for, say, ten more years, I think the education system would become revitalized in a way that will not happen with continued tenure for all. Would this plan be unfair to the new hires? Perhaps, but the capable and dedicated teachers have nothing to fear, and the students have much to gain. Would this plan drive good teachers out of Maryland or out of education? I don't think so.

I know many excellent teachers. They would continue to be excellent without tenure.

It's been my experience/observation to conclude that incompetent teachers keep their noses up an administrator's rear end far and long enough so they can slide into the next available administrative opening. See also: Peter Principle

Even without tenure, teachers would be protected from discrimination and/or arbitrary dismissal by the laws that protect all workers.

I bet he posted that with a straight face.

so much for reinventing the wheel...

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859505,00.html

Please stop perpetuating the myth that tenure guarantees a "job for life". Tenured teachers can be fired. What tenure requires is that administrators follow certain steps in order to do so. Initially, these steps should involve remediation of the problems(s). If improvement is not seen, further steps lead to termination. This system protects teachers from being victimized by vindictive administrators and provides for removal of incompetent employees. Wherein lies the problem?

It is really depressing to see a formerly respected journalist as Jay Hancock become a blog jockey who merely posts the most incendiary comments and waits for readers to bite and write.

Is The Sun paying bucks per hit or comment?

Instead of letting the uninformed spew their guts, why not research and report just what tenure in Maryland means for teachers and what they must do to maintain certification and employment?

The worst teachers (in my opinion) who literally had jobs for life were at the state college/university level.

One more gripe: Why has Hancock become the mouthpiece for BGE? It is bizarre to read his reporting of savings at competitor energy suppliers and then to end his story by advising readers to stick with BGE.

Hi TJK Thanks for the thoughts, to which I would offer a few responses. 1) Thanks for reminding the paper that we're supposed to be finding stuff out, reporting it and putting it in the paper after we know the answers. It's still the best thing we have to offer. At the same time, however, we're trying to use the Web to harness collective smarts and to set up a pipeline for people to talk to each other directly. That's part of what the blogs are about. It's not just about journalists controlling the flow of info these days. 2) Having said that, you are correct that there is a temptation to foment controversy & flaming just for clicks. We need to be on the watch for that. (No, bloggers aren't paid by the click, but I assume our ad department cares about clicks & views.) On the other hand, I thought this was a really good, informative discussion. 3) Just because third parties are offering energy packages to compete w/ BGE doesn't mean they're good deals. If you've been following I've recommended some of the electric deals but so far not the competitive gas deals.
Thanks for taking the trouble to comment. JH

Jay, don't worry about tenure. The turn over rate for teachers is 50% leave within five years and the dictatorial edicts of superintendents will accelerate this. So tenure will be a moot point.

kteach-

You claim that "Honestly, it's not that hard to fire a teacher who's not performing well, it just takes time. You have to document attempts to help the teacher improve. This could be via mentoring/instructional coaching, co-teaching, or trying another grade. This seems reasonable to me in any profession. If there is no improvement, it can be done."

Why should we, the taxpayers, pay for retraining or mentoring a teachers who is not performing?

Most everyone one in private industry works without benefit of tenure. What is about the teaching profession that must attract hoards of vindicative people who rise to the ranks of administrators so that everyone needs the protection of tenure?

And finally, it might be nice to know exactly how many teachers are fired on a yearly basis. Bet you can count them on one hand!

Steve,
Ummm..no teacher comes out of college knowing how to teach. Just like doctor's don't come out of medical school ready to practice medicine. It takes experience that only comes with on-the-job training. Teaching, however, is an art, not a science.

Madams and Sirs:

My own experience on being taught comes from six years private, six years public k-12, a community college AA and a state university BS. In my final community college year, I worked in a school district as a non-baccalaureate skills instructor under supervision from an instructor who held multiple single-subject credentials and was finishing her MA.

A little background on the tenure issue may be found breifly in Arthur Chandler's "The Biography of San Francisco State" (Lexikos: 1986) as it specifically discusses some of abuses that were endemic to public education. "The annual examination
proved to be a versatile and convenient device for getting rid of individual teachers for other reasons. ... Board [of Education] members could create openings for their own daughters, or the
daughters of their cronies, by concocting examinations to humiliate and embarrass
teachers, then firing them for incompetence" (pp.27-29) marks one notable example. The fact that few of Board members were educators themselves (p. 29) is perhaps a parallel that should be made to some of the critics but does not mean they cannot hold legitimate arguments and grievances.

Are there incompetent instructors? Yes, at every level, and presumably in every state of the Union. Does that mean that the instructor is entirely at fault for the failure of the curriculum? No, but they are involved as much as the parents, students, and environment itself influence performance. At all levels of education, public and private, there are some instructors who are better at conveying information than others to what has been an increasingly diverse student body with varying levels of English language ability and other needs.

The expectation gleaned from this series of responses is that a teacher should be an expert administrator for anywhere from 30-150 students (assuming one class is capped at 30 students, 5 of 6 periods of instruction daily), provide between half to two times as many parents with feedback, prepare lectures that engage multiple sense and levels of interest, reinforce curriculum goals, tie the lesson material to real world skills, mentor younger members, serve on various boards and committees, as well as continue to seek higher academic qualifications. Is this a realistic set of expectations, to expect someone to work for several hours without pay after working a deadline-packed, 8-hour day (students from 8-3:00, one hour lunch, one hour office hours or meetings after school, plus one hour prep. before school) while balancing many roles in one of the lowest paid post-baccalaureate positions?

I liked working with high school students, but having worked my way through university,and seen even the good teachers treated with such a general lack of regard and with uncouth incivility is disheartening. It is a wonder there are new teachers in the profession at all given the psychological, professional, and financial burdens expected of them. Dedication and enthusiasm are not enough, and there is a debate over how well postgraduate education is at preparing educators (Masters and Doctoral candidates may teach lower-division undergraduate courses, not necessarily with formal training), meaning an advanced degree may not mean having a better teacher.

In response to several claims that there is no place for primary or secondary tenure, I can agree with the sentiment of demanding results. May I suggest that the metrics also be examined as one's test does not necessarily correspond to what the test is touted as testing?

As to the question posed by Mr. Hancock, there is a degree of academic in-fighting among secondary school subject-based departments and between instructors of varying experience and backgrounds. The concept of individualized education is only now around a century old, and yet its acceptance seems limited at times today. While my comments here do not represent the full breadth of responses so far, they do include a few items that either bear repeating, provide some background, or may provide some insight in spite of my pedantic rambling.

Experentica docet.

There is no industry in the world that doesn't hold it's employees accountable for their performance and reward them accordingly. That is except for education and sadly finance. In the business world I was held accountable monthly to make my goals or no bonus. Now as a teacher I am infinitely happier but am appalled at the idea that some of my colleagues have been teaching for years and never even read a newspaper! Step up the level of expectation from people and you usually will get it. Give them a job for life and many will snooze their way through to retirement. Why should they try harder, get creative and challenge themselves when the staus quo is considered just fine?

kteach-

So, teachers graduate from college not knowing how to teach? Maybe they ought to demand a refund of their college tutions then.

Those of you that have not chosen to be classroom teachers really do not know what you are talking about. You have no idea about the ridiculous hierarchy that exists in schools: If you are a classsroom teacher with, let's say 10 years of experience, you know absolutely nothing about anything because the principal (who has had a career change and is now an all-knowing educator) knows everything about everything as a result of the position. Those of us who have chosen to stay in the classroom are considered less than worthy when it comes to knowledge, experience and loyalty to the profession. Who gives alternativley certified administrators a monolopy on best practices? Tenure is a vestige of a time when teachers were respected and considered important in education. Teachers at all levels must have tenure.

Which brings me to another point: Why is it the teachers who are always blamed for things in a school? Why does no one ever consider the administrators, school board and superintendent? What is their role in overcoming inadequacies? Perhaps we should stop putting people in positions of leadership who do not belong there...then teachers wouldn't need tenure...

Isn't FEAR the motivation of innovation. Fear of dying without food caused our ancestories to store food for the first time, or grow crops. Fear of not making money is what motivates intel to create new amazing technologies. And yet for some reason teachers have the right to be shielded from FEAR. Come on, fear is a part a life, deal with it, and become so great at your job that the principal will FEAR firing you. That is the definition of real job security.

I have no problem if you want to get rid of tenure, but you better start paying teachers a lot more or no one will want to teach. Take away the tenure and only the altruists will teach. In Oklahoma the average starting teacher makes somewhere near $28,000.

There is no tenure in the real world (the private sector).

Teachers are paid a salary. They work 9 months out of a year. They also have great health care coverage which is paid over and above their salary. This includes dental and optical coverage, again all paid for by the tax payers. They usually have every day that our children are out of school off, unless it is an in-service day. They do not have to go to work when the weather is considered dangerous since school is usually called off. They get paid for many sick days a year as well as having this special privilege called tenure. There have been teachers in the past who have assaulted children, either physically or sexually and the tenure helped them move to another school to repeat the cycle.
Many of my family members were and still are teachers and many of my friends are teachers also. I went to college with quite a few of those who are educators at this time. Let's just say they partied just as hard if not more than those who were in the medical field.
In my eyes four years of college credit and working on a masters in teaching does not mean they learned how to be teachers any better than the children they are trying to teach. As anyone knows who went to college there are many way to get your diploma with very little hard work. There are really great teachers and there are really bad ones. There are also teachers who are just okay. Which one would you choose to operate on you if they were doctors?
You all decided to teach as a profession, not to preach.
If the children's parents wanted to teach I am sure they would all have become teachers. I am sure they would love to be home with their children when summer comes or holidays or bad weather or when their children are sick. All of these extra perks and many more that I failed to mention are privileges that we the people (the tax payers) pay for, yet the complaints continue.
Parents have responsibilities to!!!, because they do not have that special gift called tenure and probably not many of the other perks offered to the educator. Usually with the financial burden and long working hours that is required by their employer in order to keep their job. Parents difficult and busy lives may at times get in the way of being the so called model parent that the teachers expect to see.
If I am working on a patient and I only do half of what was expected of me, I can't even fathom blaming the patient's family for my failures.
I ask all of the parents and teachers who are parents to look in the mirror at each other and realize who has the best of both worlds.
Not everyone has the opportunity to get a degree. Although, they may have made great teachers had they been given the same opportunities that you and I have had.

Teachers on the other hand have the power to do the job that we are paying them for, without saying, "if I had a better wage I could be a better teacher". Such arrogance!! If I am operating on a patient who cannot pay for my service, do I just do an okay job and save my best work for a patient with great insurance or a lot of money. Everyone should have a healthy wage with benefits. All jobs are necessary entities in the living circle of life. So to me everyone has an important part in the working world, not one of us are any better than the other. Some of us were granted more opportunities in life which gave us more freedom to be or do great things.
We can not change what we were born into, although we can change who we become. Maybe we should pay teachers hourly or send the children to school all year with a 2 week vacation. That way we will all win. The children will continue to learn and the teacher will have to work a full year like everyone else. HuMMMM then the teachers would have a reason to complain like the rest of working country.

I personally think tenure should be allowed but more of a challenge to get. You can do a quick internet search of teachers being fired for ideologies. Inspiring children to read through the young adult novels instead of the classics was criticized in one case and parental influence cost this person their job. Teaching evolution also comes under fire still in certain communities. I don't even want to think about the history professor that discusses the positives of the religion of Islam in this country. Tenure should be applicable because in this "industry" what is being spread is ideas and knowledge. When things like that come into play, then the practicalness of dismissal being a tool for regulating one principal's beliefs has to be battled with Tenure. However, I am not ignorant in that I do believe that a teacher only showing aptitude over a very short period of time is acceptable. I believe there should be some sort of state approval, documentation of performance, and a thesis to show intellectual aptitude. Tenure should be earned, not given away.

I really liked the article, and the very cool blog