Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Sunday, March 20, 2011 | 2 a.m.
Lynn Warne
John Oceguera
Sun archives
- Are teachers getting tenure too soon? (1-23-2011)
- Calls to end teacher tenure are bipartisan (9-23-2010)
Getting the two sides in Nevada’s schools debate to embrace “education reform” was the easy part.
The hard part is getting them to agree what it means.
Talks between the teachers union and school districts broke down last month, just as the 2011 Legislature was getting under way. The sticking point was how difficult it should be to fire newly hired teachers and administrators.
Their inability to agree on an issue that experts say is fundamental to improving education — the ability to get rid of bad teachers — underscores how, despite talk of a new era of cooperation among educators, unions and policymakers of both parties, the groups easily fall into their default and stalemated positions.
At the same time, there are signs in Nevada and nationwide that the mood has shifted against teachers on such policies.
The Washoe County School District has sponsored a measure, Senate Bill 39, to change the teacher tenure system. It would extend the probationary period for new teachers and principals from as little as one year to three years. It would also allow administrators to fire probationary employees without notice and with minimal opportunity to appeal.
“We want there to be a clear difference between probationary and post-probationary employees,” said Craig Hulse, a lobbyist for the Washoe district.
The Clark County School District, which over the past five years has seen 95 percent of new teachers granted tenure after their first year, supports the bill.
Nevada is one of just three states, along with Mississippi and Hawaii, to grant tenure in as little as one year — a period some experts say is too short to meaningfully evaluate a teacher’s skills.
The union doesn’t oppose extending the time required to gain tenure. (Thirty-four states require three years in the classroom.)
However, during a confrontational hearing this month, the state’s teachers union did object to making it easier to fire teachers on probation.
Lynn Warne, president of the Nevada State Education Association, which represents teachers and support personnel, said the union supports changing the system but wants to protect due process, including having appeals heard by a third party.
The Washoe district would have appeals heard by the superintendent.
The union also wants the bill to narrowly define “gross misconduct,” a finding that can lead to firing regardless of a teacher’s or administrator’s years of service.
“We have been at the table for months working and supporting positive reforms for education in Nevada,” Warne said. “We are reform-minded. We’re interested as anyone else to have bad teachers removed from classrooms. We don’t protect bad teachers. We protect the process and want it to be a fair process.”
Similar bills are pending in the Assembly, sponsored by Democratic leaders. They say changes to the system will happen, with or without teacher union backing.
“Like all pieces of legislation, it’s better to have universal support,” Assembly Speaker John Oceguera, D-Las Vegas, said. “But if we don’t have total support, this is reform that’s moving forward.”
This presents the possibility, rare in recent memory, for Democratic leadership to go against their political allies in the teachers union.
Assemblywoman Debbie Smith, D-Sparks, who convened education discussions before the Legislature, acknowledged that talks have broken down between union and school district officials.
“At some point, there are philosophical differences,” Smith said. The Assembly bills, which would change tenure and allow veteran teachers to be put back on probation, are “very reasonable.”
The Nevada teachers union has seen the winds shift and tried to reshape its image. But it will only bend so much.
“I’m surprised at their opposition to modest and reasonable reform,” Sen. Greg Brower, R-Reno, said. It doesn’t mean much if union officials say they support change and then don’t support bills to carry it out, he said.
If the Washoe County bill dies, there’s Assembly Bill 229, sponsored by Oceguera, that would set a three-year probationary period for new teachers.
The bill also defines gross misconduct as “any act or omission that is in intentional, wanton, willful, reckless or deliberate disregard of the interests of a school or school district or a pupil.”
For the teachers union, that isn’t specific enough and would lead to court cases and a definition set by the judiciary.
So both sides agree that “gross misconduct” should lead to teacher dismissal. As with broader education reform, agreeing what that means is the hard part.
CORRECTION: The first name of the Washoe County School District lobbyist was incorrect and has been changed. His name is Craig Hulse. | (March 20, 2011)
My wife is a teacher here in Clark County.
She has taught for over 20 years; 5 here in Nevader.
She was evaluated 4 times this year, (as in every other year) which is just as it should be.
All the evaluators need do is observe, report, and institute disciplinary and/or corrective actions if the desired criteria for good teaching practices are not being met.
Why is the "weeding out" of poor teachers being turned into some kind of magical, mythical, heretofore unobtainable goal?
If a teacher is not meeting expectations, there are almost always OTHER documentable, actionable issues going on inside & outside of the classroom to be factored in to any evaluation process.
So, the question that begs asking is, if a reasonable process already exists to do so, AND there is no (factual) impediment hindering it, why aren't bad teachers been "weeded out"?
Contrary to popular belief, there is no BIG, BAD UNION blocking this process from happening. Not in County of Clark, Nevada there isn't.
We have AMPLE OPPORTUNITY to weed out bad teachers....
What we obviously DON'T have is people in position that are willing to do the "dirty work"...
Weed out INEFFECTIVE TEACHERS QUICKLY. Do not spend a fortune in time and money while our children suffer. Why are they unable to educate, unable to teach our children to read and write? We're paying double what Europe pays for K-12 and they get GRADUATES WHO CAN READ AND WRITE.
Another good article. ENOUGH OF THE DUE PROCESS NONSENSE. Tis not a court of law. Just a teacher who choose the wrong occupation. Move it on down the line QUICKLY. ADMINISTRATORS must also look at policies hampering learning--like mixing all students regardless of ability and performance. YOU WANT TO SOLVE BEHAVIOR ISSUES? Let the smartees learn from each other while the slower learners help each other stumble along. And take a LOOK AT HOW EUROPE K-12 OPERATES for ideas on why our kids are not learning.
gmag is correct. "What we obviously DON'T have is people in position that are willing to do the dirty work." This is common to most government jobs. Due process is a series of steps that have to be followed. It is not rocket science. Unfortunately, many supervisors are too lazy or uninformed as to what must be documented.
Then there's a group of admin at CCSD who are so zealous to get rid of troublemakers (aka: whistleblowers) that they harass, intimidate, and manufacture evidence to get teachers fired (or coerce them to leave). I've heard that two teachers, a dean, and a principal are collaborating on a tell all book after they retire.
Gmag and Libra are correct. Administrators are the roadblock to eliminating bad teachers, not the law. Due process is there to try to prevent an administrator from dismissing a teacher without cause. The problem is that many administrators are too lazy to complete the due process procedure to eliminate those teachers. It's easier to just leave the bad teachers in place. Believe me, most teachers know who the bad ones are (as do the students, particularly at secondary levels), but we have no ability to act on that. What makes administrators good judges of teacher effectiveness anyway? Many administrators are teachers that either couldn't cut it in the classroom, or wanted the pay raise that is associated with it.
Three years probationary period is a sufficient time to evaluate a teacher, provided, this teacher is evaluated by an administrator who has also taught in that discipline and grade level. Bear in mind, that education has undergone massive changes in "Best Practices," and it does take time for people to access the coursework and put it to use and perfect it. Education is a true learning curve for all involved, it is hands-on, and you learn as you do it.
This problem came about due to the great building boom period here in Nevada, when there was a staffing shortage.
As with anything, personalities may conflict. Many seasoned teachers who moved to Nevada fell victim to whatever(being vague here) within months of employment and left. This had been rampant for the last ten years. Now we are experiencing an economic crisis and "bust" period.
Educators truly care and are there for the students, make no mistake. The teachers have not seen a raise or cost of living adjustment pay in nearing four years, how about you? They don't get paid bonuses for holidays or doing well. They do take their work home. Do you? They pay out of their own pockets for classroom stuff for the students. Do you do that for those at your jobsite?
Yes, something needs to be done. Enforce our immigration laws. Get legal or get out. NO welfare, no educational services, no free medical services to those who are breaking the laws and are here illegally. Lawmakers, do your job.
It certainly seems like Administrators are a huge part of the problem. that certainly doesn't mean that unnecessary "due process" and tenure after one year aren't also part of the problem. If nothing else, it's not good for public perception. I wouldn't be surprised if some administrators don't push to eliminate the obviously bad teachers because they know the union is going to support them, no matter how bad they are. and it's just a constant fight, even if they're right.
call it "lazy", or whatever, but it shouldn't cost so much time and money, especially when it's a clear cut case. the virtual "rubber rooms" in NV need to be eliminated.
To be clear, I definitely don't doubt that there are lazy, incompetent administrators. they should be fired just as easily as the bad teachers that we all know exist.
Tenure is interesting? I have been a teacher since 1990 - never have I been told I have tenure? Everyone wants to take it away - do I even have it?
Do they mean that any witch on a broom can fly in and fire me? I should think that if I have 100s of people who have liked the job I do - that should out weigh the occasional disgruntled person who didn't like the way I taught their child in school. I'm not going to be everyone's cup of tea, that doesn't mean I don't do my job.
I do have Weingarten Rights - due process. I should know the complaints against me and be able to make changes if needed. That would be good practice - even in business. So what is the problem?
first_grade_teacher, I think the problem is that the union is such a powerful entity, and it is HIGHLY unlikely that they would acknowledge that a teacher is bad. I do feel like, based on the public's understanding of the union contracts and how they essentially treat all teachers the same, that they promote mediocrity. They fail to reward the great teachers and they make it difficult to eliminate the poor teachers. Then they claim that their primary objective is to make sure that kids get the best education possible, which is a lie.
I'm not one of these right wing nuts that think collective bargaining is evil, but I think the way that most contracts have been structured in recent years are a huge part of the problem. We need the union to be part of the solution, which means they can't just pass the buck every time and blame the parents. They need to acknowledge that they should make some sacrifices (NOT financial, I think teachers deserve to be paid A LOT more), but in terms of their "rights" according to their contracts.
And I don't think that parents not liking your style, in and of itself, should be a problem. I think that if you're an effective teacher, parents will see the improvements on their kids' test scores. Too bad if they don't like you. And too bad if they DO like you, and the test scores are actually getting worse. We need objective criteria so that you don't feel like it's all about office/classroom politics.