Uncertainty remains over implementation and impact of Michigan's new tenure law
Trevor Staples carries a box as he sets up his classroom at Burns Park Elementary in Ann Arbor. Staples and other teachers are uneasy about the new tenure law which requires teachers to evaluated every year and possibly fired but the criteria for evaluation, Staples said, is not clear.
Nick Dentamaro | For AnnArbor.com
Booth Newspapers
Michigan’s teacher tenure reform could ultimately have a dramatic impact on the lives of teachers, students and parents.
But don’t expect public schools to immediately remove a slew of ineffective teachers.
It will take time -- perhaps three years or more -- before the public sees the true effects of the dramatic overhaul for hiring, firing and placing public school teachers.
Even then, many are reluctant to predict how many teachers might lose their jobs.
“I know it gets really good press to say we have all these teachers out there that need to be let go,” said Debbie Squires, associate director of the Michigan Elementary and Middle School Principals Association, which generally supports the changes. “I don’t think there’s going to be as many as we think there will be.”
It makes it easier for school districts to fire teachers than the current process that sets strict standards for removing tenured teachers.
Under the new law, educators can be dismissed if they get ineffective ratings on their performance reviews for three consecutive years. Many details of the evaluation system are being worked out, but student growth will be part of the equation beginning in 2013-14. Twenty-five percent of a teacher’s evaluation will be based on student progress that year, 40 percent the following year and 49 percent the year after that.
Teachers’ ratings also will be based on whether they meet goals earlier identified by administrators in consultation with the employees.
“This doesn’t even kick into full force as far as the 49 percent based on the student growth until school year 2015-16,” Squires said. “So that would be the first year that there’s going to be probably some dramatic changes in some of the effective ratings.”
The law requires Snyder to appoint a Governor’s Council on Educator Effectiveness that will develop a more-detailed state evaluation framework. The growth component will include data on how teachers’ students perform on the state’s standardized tests, the Michigan Educational Assessment Program exams and the Michigan Merit Exam.
Teachers such as Trevor Staples are waiting to find out more.
“It’s hard to say exactly what the law means because there doesn’t seem to be a lot of specifics right now,” said Staples, a 12-year veteran who teaches at Ann Arbor’s Burns Park Elementary School. “I don’t know of any teachers here that are in total freak-out mode, but we are a little nervous about what this might mean.”
Burns Park Elementary teacher Trevor Staples says teachers aren't in "freak-out mode, but we are a little nervous about what this might mean."
Nick Dentamaro | For AnnArbor.com
“I don’t think we can take the MEAP and say, ‘This particular student did poorly on the MEAP and thus this teacher must be a bad teacher,’ ” he said.
Amber Arellano, executive director of the advocacy group Education Trust-Midwest in Ann Arbor, says the evaluations could weed out the bottom 5 or 10 percent of public school teachers. “Most of the principals that we’ve talked to in Michigan and the research suggests it’s probably somewhere between there,” she said. “It’s a pretty small percentage.”
Education Trust recommended many components that ended up in Michigan’s new law, though Arellano said the nonpartisan group opposed parts of the package that changed collective bargaining.
LOOMING COURT BATTLES?
While supporters such as Arellano hope the new tenure laws will improve achievement, opponents fear the changes will hurt both students and teachers.
Teachers must be part of the process for improving teacher quality and student progress, said Doug Pratt, Michigan Education Association spokesman.
“My worst fear is that it’s not going to work to improve student achievement,” Pratt said. “I fear we’re going to see people lose their jobs and they’re going to have to go to federal court for expensive court proceedings to save their jobs.”
Under Michigan’s previous laws, standards for removing a tenured teacher were extremely high. Many school superintendents and board members complained tenure hearings weren’t worth the time, effort and money.
State politicians -- particularly Republicans -- attacked the system.
Under the old law, probationary teachers could be awarded tenure following four years on the job. The new law changes that to five years. It also sets a lower standard for firing teachers -- for reasons that are not “arbitrary or capricious” rather than the previous standard of “reasonable and just cause.”
That’s “almost a step above at-will,” said Brad Banasik, legal counsel for the Michigan Association of School Boards.
Tenure reform in other states
Michigan isn’t the only state changing how it evaluates, retains and dismisses teachers.
Others such as Rhode Island, Tennessee and Colorado are making similar changes. It’s too soon to assess those reforms, said Sandi Jacobs, vice president of the National Council for Teacher Quality, which supports state efforts to measure teacher effectiveness.
“Up until about 18 months ago, there wasn’t a single state that had policy concerning the awarding of teacher tenure based on teacher effectiveness,” Jacobs said. “No state is far enough along as far as the implementation of the law to say how it’s going to play out.”
The school system in Washington, D.C., recently fired 206 teachers -- or 5 percent of its staff -- because of poor performance, The Washington Post reported in July.
“The big misconception is tenure was designed to protect bad teachers,” the MEA’s Pratt said. “The union’s job is not to protect bad teachers. That’s nonsense. No one wants bad teachers. Tenure was to protect good teachers from bad decisions.”
But a recent study by a University of Michigan professor concluded principals in Chicago who were given more flexibility to fire probationary teachers did not abuse their authority. “When given the flexibility, principals, by and large, selected teachers that were less effective in a variety of dimensions (to be fired),” said professor Brian A. Jacob of the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. “It should give people some indication that principals can identify teachers that are less effective and are willing to do so for the purpose of dismissal.”
The reform also allows public schools to assign teachers and approve layoffs based on factors other than seniority.
Grand Rapids Superintendent Bernard Taylor is a big fan of that change.
He has been frustrated as the district has lost teachers involved in new programs to layoffs because they lack seniority.
“I will tell you that ‘last in, first out’ definitely means that in some instances teachers who came into new programs, teachers who wanted to be part of a reform agenda, those people were the ones who often had to vacate their positions,” Taylor said.
“There is something to be said that if people are willing to take on more difficult assignments, if people are willing to take on reform processes, they should be able to stay in those positions in place of those people who opted not to.”
Still, Taylor said there must be ample professional development opportunities so teachers can improve. That means money from the state or other sources, he said.
CONCERNS
Critics of Michigan’s new system aren’t the only ones who worry about parts of the new law.
Several education officials said they are concerned about what will happen when schools notify parents a teacher has been deemed ineffective for two years, but has another year to improve before facing dismissal. Parent notification is required in the law.
“Imagine 30 parents calling when they get that letter, and none of them wanting that teacher,” Squires said. “And as the principal of the building, there’s nothing you can do about that. Someone has to have that teacher.”
Many wonder about the merits of using student performance on state standardized tests or the college entrance exam ACT to evaluate the students’ teachers.
“The MEAP and the ACT weren’t designed to evaluate teachers,” the MEA’s Pratt said. “I can use my foot to measure the distance between two points, but that’s not necessarily the best way to do that.”
John Austin of Ann Arbor, a Democrat who is president of the state Board of Education, said MEAP testing likely will have to be moved from early in the school year to near the end. Otherwise, he said, it will be difficult to credit or blame this year’s teacher or last year’s teacher for the performance of those students grades 3-9.
Austin is generally supportive of the changes, many of them recommended by the education board. He said it's important they lead to more support for teacher improvement rather than being punitive.
Arellano is among those who say schools need money from the state or philanthropic organizations to train people to evaluate teachers. “Principals alone or administrators alone aren’t going to be able to do all of this,” she said.
School officials have said principals often struggled to meet the previous requirement of evaluating teachers every three years. The new law requires yearly job performance reviews.
State Sen. John Gleason, D-Flushing, an opponent of the new laws, said they will discourage young people from entering the profession. He said it’s unfair to put teachers on the hot seat at the same time the state is reducing school aid. The state cut aid to public schools by $470 million for 2011-12.
“It’s almost laughable when we say they must do their jobs better, and we as legislators passed a law saying we’re going to take away hundreds of millions of dollars out of the K-12 system,” Gleason said. “We have hamstrung these educators about every way we could. If we really thought that teachers could do better, then we ought to do better ourselves.”
Comments
dlb
Fri, Aug 26, 2011 : 1:35 a.m.
I am not a teacher but work in the school system. I see the vast majority of teachers working hard and committed to excellence. Unfortunately, Republicans are doing their old familiar game of picking a villain to attack in order to rally votes and then coming up with simplistic solutions that show no understanding of the complexity of the issue. Support teachers! If you have a complaint, work with the principal about your concerns and push for training to help the teacher do a better job. It is far more cost effective to improve the skills of the current work force than it is to take the "throw the bums out" approach.
DonBee
Fri, Aug 26, 2011 : 2:19 a.m.
dlb - And the Democrats pick other villains - people who own businesses, white males, etc. Both parties do it, because it gives them a issue to draw voters to their cause with. Let's be honest, it is the same kind of politics we have had in the country since the beginning of the 2 party system. Now it is just on TV 24/7 instead of only in the Sunday paper.
jns131
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 8:30 p.m.
I hate to say it, but the bottom line is this. We need decent teachers teaching our children without the drama of being unfair and impartial. We saw a lot of that at one school we have now moved on from. Without naming the school, we saw a lot of favored teachers getting favorite teacher awards and us parents looking at each other in absolute disbelief that the teacher got that award. Sorry, but with the number of complaints that teacher got, that award should look like a big boot. There have been a lot of teachers that should not even be teaching. I've been told about teachers reading newspapers in class while the teacher has instruction on the board. All because that teacher has tenure. Thank heavens Michigan is seeing the writing on the wall. Look out teachers, freak out all you want, because there are parents out there like me, that will make sure you are doing your job or else faith the wraith of the tenure law. At least now I can watch my child get a great education thru Ann Arbor without wondering if that teacher is hoping to make teacher of the year or not.
scott
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 3:24 p.m.
A lot of people are looking at teachers on this, but how about the absolute failure of the people that are setting up education policies. NCLB, the MME are disasters and are forced upon all of your kids and are making all of your kids dumber, yet we're worried about a few teachers that probably won't be fired anyways because principals aren't out to get teachers and don't like to give bad evaluations. Drop testing except for 1-2 times total throughout school and with the millions saved you can hire teacher consultants to work with teachers through observation and planning with them so they get better. There is too much vindictiveness towards teachers who could use help and want to be better.
AMOC
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 11:48 p.m.
Scott - I totally fail to see how measuring what students have learned only at rare intervals will make teachers more effective, with or without assistance from teacher consultants. The whole reason for standardized tests is to compare students to a standard, and groups of students to other groups of students. The "proficient" level on a standard test should be the floor, with no limit on how much more a student is encouraged to learn.
Judy
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 1:58 p.m.
"Imagine 30 parents calling when they get that letter, and none of them wanting that teacher," Squires said. "And as the principal of the building, there's nothing you can do about that. Someone has to have that teacher." I think this part is really funny. If parents are so much of the problem, why should any principal be worried about "no parent wanting a 2 year ineffective teacher. Because like teachers as some claim 90 to 95% of parents are concerned about their childrens education. If only 90 to 95% of all children came out the public school system with an education.
alarictoo
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 1:57 p.m.
Shaking my head and trying to figure out how this thread has turned into yet another teacher/public employee bashing extravaganza. I have also worked in both worlds, and can totally agree with @clownfish's latest comment: "Having worked in both the private and public sectors, I have seen favored employees with poor work ethics retained in both private and public jobs. Kissing up to the boss works everywhere! I have also seen good employees given walking papers because they don't play politics correctly in the office." Personally, I have had an up close look at teachers jobs, and I sure wouldn't want their job. Those who teach and teach well are a blessing to their students and their community. Those who don't teach well should be able to be removed from their positions. All I see Mr. Staples and others saying in this article is that things are still uncertain at this juncture. That they are concerned about what might happen (this is their livelihood, so it is only reasonable). And, the real possibility that even replacing all of the "ineffective teachers" will produce no perceptible improvement in student accomplishment. You can replace ineffective teachers, but what do you do about ineffective parents?
alarictoo
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 3:59 p.m.
@Judy - I would hope they are doing it because they both because they are good at it, and because they enjoy it. That enjoyment will make them excel that much more. However, much of the commentary that I see in these threads tends to lump all teachers together as lazy, incompetent, greedy whiners. Which is not only inaccurate, but I would guess that over time reading these types of comments is a big "buzz kill" to the majority of the teachers who are good and effective. Disclaimer: I am not a teacher, and have never been one. However, I have been privileged to know many very talented teachers, and, unfortunately, a couple of bad ones.
Judy
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 2:55 p.m.
I agree with, "I have seen favored employees with poor work ethics retained in both private and public jobs. Kissing up to the boss works everywhere! I have also seen good employees given walking papers because they don't play politics correctly in the office." This is why I feel, as a tax payer or employer of teachers I want ineffective teachers who have had 3 years to prove themself gone. I also agree with the commit, "As an employee (not going to use the word "worker" because that is not relevant) you chose teaching as your profession. No gun to your head. You knew exactly what you were getting involved in." Most people chose the work they want to do. Most I would hope are doing it because they are good at it!!!!
Steve Pepple
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 1:04 p.m.
A comment containing a personal attack against another commenter has been removed.
clownfish
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 12:40 p.m.
Most of the "whining" does not seem to be coming from teachers, it is coming from people that don't work in the school system and are probably unwilling to deal with other peoples kids on a daily basis. Having worked in both the private and public sectors, I have seen favored employees with poor work ethics retained in both private and public jobs. Kissing up to the boss works everywhere! I have also seen good employees given walking papers because they don't play politics correctly in the office. What percentage of teachers are bad? How much of your tax money to you want to use finding and firing them? Reading these comments one would think the % is 50, not 5.
grye
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 12:33 p.m.
For all those who whine about teachers getting the entire summer off, please take note that many teachers are back in their classrooms this week setting the room up for the coming year. There are many items that they must bring from home, poster to put up, visual items placed to enhance the subject learning process, books to organize, etc. Next week they are in mandatory training. Teachers last worked on June 17th. They are back in the classroom now almost 2 weeks before the students begin attendance. Teachers did not get 3 or 4 months off during the summer.
kermdd7
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 8:28 p.m.
Judy- 10 hours a day for a 5 day week is 50 hours. 50 hours times 36 weeks gives 360 hours above a 40 hour work week. 360 divided by 40 is 9 extra weeks. So that would put teachers working 45 weeks out of 52, with 7 weeks off, not 10. That doesn't include any time spent during the summer- the weeks leading up to school or for conferences during the summer.
Judy
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 1:37 p.m.
But...they do get more time off work they most. I figure that even if they work 10 hours a day while the kids are in school (most on likely) they still have 10 weeks more off per year then the average US employee working.
nekm1
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 12:43 p.m.
whine whine whine. And by the way, what make you think that "regular employees" don't bring items from home or purchase items on their own, to enhance their work experience. Geez, get over it and do the job. Oh, and I am sorry if I was off about the time off to "recharge" only being 65 days, as opposed to 90 days. My mistake. Also, forgot to mention the two weeks off during the holiday's, week off during spring break, and counltes 3 and 4 day weekends for "teacher conferences". 9 days for illness, week off for personal days, MLK day, Labor Day, Memorial Day, Columbus Day, etc.
nekm1
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 12:29 p.m.
Could teachers, for one minute, please quit whining? Most "employees at will" must perform in their jobs everyday, or face dismissal. That is why you WORK for a living for someone else, but, in America, have the opportunity to become the EMPLOYER if you so choose! Even line auto workers have standards of performance. As an employee (not going to use the word "worker" because that is not relevant) you chose teaching as your profession. No gun to your head. You knew exactly what you were getting involved in. Why so worried about yourself all of the time? How about the classroom kids you face every day? Most have parents that don't have guaranteed jobs. Most learn that hard work allows you to improve your personal life if you so choose to do so. Yet teacher after teacher can only complain that they are not guaranteed employment for life, without cost of benefits (more than 20%) and, NO pension paid for by someone else (taxpayers). Why this entitlement mentality? Teaching is a profession, not unlike law, medical, sales and the like. None of which is protected with tenure (a job for life). Grow up or get out. Work 12 months a year, and see what you are really made of. As a taxpayer, and employee of a large company, I DON'T feel your pain. Put a sock in it, and suck it up.
kermdd7
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 8:21 p.m.
Many teachers chose teaching as their profession back when what they were "getting involved in" included benefits, tenure, a pension, and lower pay than the private sector. The game is changing- thus the perception that teachers are whiners. Looking at my hours (and being conservative) as an elementary school teacher, I work 34 hours for 50 weeks a year.
DonBee
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 6:02 p.m.
Clownfish - You would be surprised what many of us face each day in the way of angry people on our jobs. From the noise we make at a job site, to the dust that comes from a dirt pile to the anger of a tree coming down because it is rotted through and dangerous to ..... My boss gets a dozen calls a week about things my team does on the job and that we should be fired or they will sue. Teachers are not the only ones who have to deal with anger on a daily basis.
sh1
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 1:13 p.m.
I don't see whining. I see a teacher expressing caution about a law that was passed without all the parts in place.
Wolf's Bane
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 1:01 p.m.
I'm not a teacher, but I do believe that all children (in the US) deserve a high quality education!
clownfish
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 12:34 p.m.
Most employees do not have to face an angry parent upset that her child got a "C" on a bad paper. The parent runs to the principle and DEMANDS the teacher be fired! Are you saying that teachers do not "work"? If its such a cake job, go to it! Show them how it is done!
Wolf's Bane
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 12:25 p.m.
Gov. Snyder's austerity measures are designed to reward big business and other corporate entities, while punishing those that take on a more socialized and humanitarian approach. Furthermore, I think it was completely intentional on the part of the state government to keep the new mandates as fuzzy as possible so that they can be adapted later should any further opposition arise. These are typical business practices and they stink.
DonBee
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 6 p.m.
So my plumber is a "Big Business" Wookie? He said the other day, that the tax changes will let him keep about $1,500 more a year, and that would translate into a replacement for his 1996 van with 200,000 miles on it. Sounds like big business to me! Meijers on the other hand reported that their taxes were increasing under the new laws.
Josie'sDaddy
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 2:02 p.m.
Good post Wookie!
clownfish
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 12:20 p.m.
As mentioned above...will teachers whose students do well on standardized tests (which do NOT teach thinking skills!) be rewarded with bonuses? This is how it is done in business. How about a new car for each teacher in a school system that rates at the top? If a CEO that does poorly (Borders multiple CEO's) gets a per diem, a car and a check to go away, why not teachers too? Will administrators be relieved if X number of teachers students fail? How about the state rep of a community that continually fails students?
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 4:02 p.m.
"Look at what Superintendents get in their deals, and how many cheat and steal, and get tossed during contracts that continue to pay these clowns while they sue the district" Examples of their cheating and stealing please? And on a mass scale, please, since you have blanketed every administrator with your charge of crimminality. Also, if you do not like the compensation of . . . say . . . the new superintendent of the AAPS, why not buttress that with some facts? For instance, compare their pay with the CEO of a company that employs as many people, has a similar budget, has a similar level of equipment and capital investment. Please compare those factors--in other words, have some actual FACTS at hand, before you complain about the pay of school superintendents. Good Night and Good Luck
nekm1
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 1:01 p.m.
Teachers are not CEO's. You want waste? Look at what Superintendents get in their deals, and how many cheat and steal, and get tossed during contracts that continue to pay these clowns while they sue the district!
clownfish
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 12:24 p.m.
Wyeth CEO Bernard Poussot received a 69 percent compensation raise in 2008, to $21.3 million, in addition to a $24 million change-in-control bonus for selling his company to Pfizer.* Wyeth also took the explanation of executive perks to new levels, saying that Wyeth "requires" Poussot to travel on private jets and helicopters even for "personal" reasons: Poussot and Essner both retain a car and driver. Norden receives a leased apartment near Madison. N.J.; Poussot gets housing expenses for living near Madison Poussot and Norden are provided with the use of the corporate helicopter and company automobiles for commuting pruposes, and are remibursed for the tax liability for any imputed income. ---- Valeant Pharmaceuticals saw its revenues decline, its net loss quadruple, and its cash sink by $109 million in 2008. But the compensation of its top executives doubled, to $19.7 million in 2008 from $8.6 million in 2007. ---- How the private sector really works!
clownfish
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 12:16 p.m.
What about parents of kids that continually do poorly on these tests? Any repercussions for them?
Judy
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 11:44 a.m.
"But don't expect public schools to immediately remove a slew of ineffective teachers." I work for a "non-union" company and they do not have to have a "reason" for letting you go other then they just do not want you working for them anymore. I have work for this company for over 27 years, "WHY" because I do a good job and my performance review "EVERY" year shows the job I am doing. Teachers are "NO" different. What I would like to see is a teacher to move with his or her class, that way not only would the student have new material every year but so would the teachers. I will repeat my claim, "Good Teachers" are worth there weight in GOLD, but ineffective teachers are hurting us all, but mostly the students that are in there class rooms. I am proud to say my daughter is a Whitmore Lake Public School grad and doing very well. WHY, because she had junior high and high school teachers that were "EFFECTIVE."
Steve Norton, MIPFS
Fri, Aug 26, 2011 : 3:49 a.m.
For a detailed breakdown of the teacher evaluation provisions, see our article on the Michigan Parents for Schools website here: <a href="http://www.miparentsforschools.org/node/144" rel='nofollow'>http://www.miparentsforschools.org/node/144</a>
Steve Norton, MIPFS
Fri, Aug 26, 2011 : 3:45 a.m.
DonBee said, "Nothing in the law says that all of the evaluation of student progress has to be standardized tests." -- Well, actually, it does. It requires that at least 50% (not 49%, that was in an earlier version) of a teacher's performance evaluation must be based on "student achievement" and that must be "objective student growth and assessment data." That pretty much limits it to standardized tests of some sort. The legislation also requires that this data be fed into a "value added model" which is supposed to statistically separate out a particular teacher's influence from other factors. The model AAPS has been working on is based on the Danielson system, which puts the emphasis on evaluating what teachers DO, rather than how students perform on a handful of narrow standardized tests. Other models used successfully in places like Toledo and Montgomery Co., MD likewise focus on teacher practice and peer evaluation and review. All these systems, however successful, are running into trouble with state and Federal requirements to put student testing at the center of teacher evaluation. The legislation also said that a local district could keep its model only if it meets the state requirements on data and was in full operation on July 19th (when the bills were signed). The State Board of Ed will be playing no role in all this; the laws create a new "Governor's Commission" appointed by Snyder, House Speaker Jase Bolger and Senate majority leader Randy Richardville. State Superintendent Flanagan will be a non-voting member. I rather doubt that this group will be looking for sophisticated evaluation systems, especially if they require more time and money. Increasing the reliance on test results gives you "evaluation" on the cheap.
DonBee
Fri, Aug 26, 2011 : 1:41 a.m.
kermdd7 - Nothing in the law says that all of the evaluation of student progress has to be standardized tests. AAPS supposedly has a great way to evaluate teachers. I suspect if it is good, that the State Board of Education would adopt it. But I doubt (prove me wrong please someone) that the AAEA has taken the evaluation process up to Lansing and sat down across the table and discussed how to really evaluate teachers. I also suspect that it is getting too late now, because some Edu-Consultant has given the State Board a simple formula. This is AAEA loss for not being pro-active.
kermdd7
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 8:16 p.m.
DonBee- $$ is why standardized tests are used. They're the cheapest. Many of the writing sections of the MEAP (in writing as well as free-response in math, reading and science) were cut in the past two years because they were too expensive to grade. Yes, lawyers, doctors, engineers, and drivers all have to pass standardized tests. So did teachers when we got our licenses. Do drivers have to pass a standardized test every year? Do doctors get evaluated based on the personal fitness of their patients? The alternative would be to let teachers evaluate their students and administrators evaluate their teachers. I realize that this has been ineffective, and I support increasing accountability. I just don't think that basing 49% of a teacher's evaluation on their students' standardized testing is effective.
DonBee
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 5:57 p.m.
Josie's Daddy - If standardized tests are not effective - then why are they used for almost every license that you can get as an adult? Lawyers, Doctors, Engineers, Drivers, etc all have to pass standardized tests. If they are not useful, what do you propose then as a replacement for them to measure gains in learning? If nothing, then what are you suggesting - just passing people along after a year in a grade? Social promotion got us into the public school mess. We need to find a way out.
Josie'sDaddy
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 2 p.m.
But stadardized tests are not an effective way to evaluate. And besides, kids come into schools with varying social economic levels. There are kids with no parental involvement. How is a teacher supposed to improve on this? And why should they be punished for factors outside of their control? This is a BAD idea!
Judy
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 1:09 p.m.
Vivian1 at 8:13 AM on August 25, 2011 My husband had to take a pay cut from $23 dollars and hour to $18 dollars, not because of poor work but because of the economy . I have not had a raise in 3 years again not because of poor or ineffective work but because of the poor economy. I have been with the same company for over 27 years. johnnya2 at 8:15 AM on August 25, 2011 Yes, she did have effective parent, me. I was a single mother the whole time she was in school. But...you tell me anyone who is working anywhere that does not have a part of there job influence by what others around them are doing? EXAMPLE: Sales, if you do not make the customer happy they do not buy from you, your sales goes down and your store performance rating goes down. Yet maybe your sales were up fo the year. I will agree that a lot not all parents are the biggest problem. That is why not to long ago I read here in the Ann Arbor News more and more places are becoming "KID FREE ZONES". Why? Because parents have "NO" control over there children nor do they care too.
johnnya2
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 12:15 p.m.
OR, could it be she had effective PARENTS? There is no greater predictor of success in school than the value of education given by parents. If a child is not performing and a teacher wants a conference with the parent, but the parent does not bother to show up. Will parents who do not show up for parent teacher conferences be considered neglectful parents? How about the kid who just found out mom and dad are getting divorced and last year did great in school, but this year does lousy. Maybe a kid was doing great and suddenly discovered sex and drugs. Is that the teachers responsibility? Maybe a kid is forced to work because mom or dad lost their job and instead of doing homework they are now spending time surviving. The problem with all of this comes down to blaming a teacher for a students poor performance. How about students and parents take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY (republicans seem to be all for this) for their education. I have no problem with evaluations by peers, principals, and administrators. Put together a group that says, is this teacher providing an environment and lesson plan that is conducive to learning. I have a major problem with teachers performance tied to student performance on standardized tests. Teaching to the test is not education.
Vivian1
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 12:13 p.m.
Judy, I whole heartedly agree with you. However, once we get this evaluation system in place, I must ask, if good teachers are worth their weight in gold, why are we standing for such slashing of their pay and benefits? I don't think most people disagree that at least 80% of teachers are effective (in my experience, more like 90% or 95%), yet we are allowing their health benefits to be cut, their wages to be cut, all while their class sizes grow and the demands on their time increase exponentially. It's no wonder admissions applications at UM's school of ed are down almost 50%.
microtini
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 11:42 a.m.
There are so many social factors that figure into a student's academic performance, it's impossible to narrow it down to the classroom teacher. Furthermore, it has always been simple for principals to fire probationary teachers while tenure has traditionally protected academic freedom, not ineffective teaching. As Sen. Gleason points out, it's ludicrous to believe that we'll see improved student-performance while cutting $470 million from the education budget. Mr. Staples from Burns Park Elementary spoke at the U-M nurses' rally last week. He pointed out that this austerity campaign is designed to get workers to do more for less. It is not about improving student performance or patient care, it's about driving down the living standards of nurses, teachers and, ultimately, all workers.
Josie'sDaddy
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 2:03 p.m.
And Whitmore Lake the teachers are more "EFFECTIVE" because there is more parental involvement that a teacher in DPS. But they both work just as hard. Where is the fairness here?
Lac Court Orilles
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 11:40 a.m.
Ever wonder the real reason for the Republican's ceaseless stream of new teacher tenure laws? It's not about improving instruction it's all about dipping into that big pot of money in the education budget. Republican politicians view the education budget as a big pool of money available for their wealthy buddies to dream up schemes to take some of it for their personal profit. Targeting teachers for termination is a way of weakening the public school system, causing discredit amongst the parent public, and thus causing a move away from public education. Once public schools are weakened, Republican business tycoons can start new charter schools and dip into the big pot of money in the education budget. Along the way the Republican party lowers wages and gets rid of teachers who generally donate funds to the Democratic party. Of course wealthy Republicans don't have to worry about their own children because they have enough money to send their children to private school systems. Would someone out there please let me know if I am the only middle class person out there that sees this big plan?
Michele
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 2:28 p.m.
Ed, if you read my response carefully, you would see that I was referring to my local charter school. They send me annual reports, so I know that they perform well (as a whole). I know that not every charter school can make this claim. But I do think it's important for parents to have choices in their child's education. Even parents who cannot afford private education. And just because one is a Republican, does not make him/her wealthy.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Fri, Aug 26, 2011 : 2:33 a.m.
Michelle wrote that charter schools "always perform as well or better on standardized tests" 1) IF you really were a teacher at some point in your life, you should know that it is seldom that something is ALWAYS true. 2) In this case, not only is it not ALWAYS true that charters perform better than do public schools, but it seems that in many cases they perform worse. Sources: <a href="http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/riehl/article_40c956c0-3ee2-587a-b89b-630bdb95f18b.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/riehl/article_40c956c0-3ee2-587a-b89b-630bdb95f18b.html</a> <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/118820339.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/118820339.html</a> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/education/14winerip.html?src=recg" rel='nofollow'>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/education/14winerip.html?src=recg</a> <a href="http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/choice/pcsp-final/execsum.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/choice/pcsp-final/execsum.html</a> The last one is a real scream--a report put together by the George W. Bush administration about the problems of charter schools that it immediately tried to denigrate because of its data and conclusion. Diane Ravitch was the Deputy Secretary of Education under Bush and, at the time, was a big proponent of charters. She has since come to another conclusion. Perhaps you'd learn something were you to read her book. It is _The Death and Life of the Great American School System_. Also worth noting that she thought "Waiting for Superman" was little more than a piece of pro-charter propaganda that did not reflect reality. Yes, Charters always do better. In Fantasyland, that is. Good Night and Good Luck
Michele
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 8:54 p.m.
Yes, it's all the Republicans' fault! Seriously?! As an Independent with Democratic leanings, and a former teacher, I SUPPORT this law! Getting rid of lousy teachers can only strengthen education. I cannot afford a PRIVATE school education, but am thankful to have a free public charter school near my home where dedicated teachers are willing to work with no union and LESS Federal and State money to really help children (who, by the way, always perform as well or better on standardized tests). Perhaps if AAPS evaluated their teachers and got rid of the bad ones, instead of shuffling them around, my children would still be going there.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 3:57 p.m.
Hammer and Nail, Lac. Hammer and nail. @Judy: Bull! Charter schools, the supposed savior of our education system, do no better on standardized tests (and oftentimes worse) than public schools. But so long as charter schools are a way to funnel public money to private corporations (e.g., the Heritage Academies), Republicans will not complain one iota. Good Night and Good Luck
Judy
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 12:09 p.m.
"BULL" "Public education" has been going down hill for years. I am not a Republican or Democratic. Should teachers be held accountable for their students learning in their classroom? That's their job. Why do teachers believe they have a right to keep a "job" if they are not performing up to standards just because they are in the classroom? I guess you are not held accountable in your job or maybe you don't have a job because you were not accountable. If you are a teacher I am glad my daughter is nolonger in the school.
HappySenior
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 11:21 a.m.
Bob Wheaton has done an excellent job of bringing in comments from many points on the circle of this discussion. Teachers don't like it and teacher's unions don't like it. Not a surprise. The comment, "almost a step above at-will," is on point. Why do teachers believe they have a right to keep a job if they are not performing up to standards. That is old-time union religion. Certain legislators and educations say it takes more money, but they always say it takes more money, no matter what the problem is. If you look at the Washington DC school system, they spend more per student than anyone, and they have horrific results in terms of test scores and graduation rates. Michigan schools are better overall, but reports on the graduation rate at Detroit high schools varies from 24.9% to 50%---neither number is satisfactory. Money is spent in Detroit, so the answer is something else. From <a href="http://www.homesurfer.com/schoolreports/view/schoolrankreports.cfm?state=MI" rel='nofollow'>http://www.homesurfer.com/schoolreports/view/schoolrankreports.cfm?state=MI</a>: Detroit Public Schools spend $11,545 per student Ann Arbor Public Schools spend $10,676 per student Chelsea School District 1 spends $8,786 per student Parents are going to be unhappy if their child gets a teacher who has underperformed for the past 2 years. Well, I would hope so. Will notifying parents place a burden on the principal? I hope so. Will the principal work with the teacher and will the teacher work to improve? I hope so. I believe most of the wailing is posturing from the unions trying to protect members at all costs and politicians trafficking for votes. I believe most teachers work hard and do a fine job. Should teachers be held accountable for their students learning in their classroom? That's their job.
sh1
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 12:01 p.m.
Please point out the "wailing" and teachers saying they "don't like it" from this article. I read about teacher caution as they wait to learn more about a law that was passed before the details were in place.
Judy
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 11:59 a.m.
Very well said. I hope and pray "teachers" and "teacher unions" understand the that children who are coming out off school at 24.9% to 50% are not going to beable to make a living and "we" the middle working class will have to support them.