Is tenure a good thing that protects teachers from the whims of a fickle school administration or does it protect teachers who should have been put out to pasture a long time ago?
From the 'Urban Institute Research of Record' published November, 2008.
Assessing the Potential of Using Value‐Added Estimates of Teacher Job Performance for Making Tenure Decisions BRIEF 3 NOVEMBER 2008 DAN GOLDHABER AND MICHAEL HANSEN UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BOTHELL, CENTER ON REINVENTING PUBLIC EDUCATION USING TEACHER EFFECTS ESTIMATES FOR HIGH-STAKES PERSONNEL DECISIONS Well over a decade into the standards movement, the idea of holding schools accountable for results is now being pushed to a logical, if controversial, end point: the implementation of policies aimed at holding individual teachers (not just schools) accountable for results. Some have called for reforms such as pay for performance or changes to teacher tenure to make it easier to reward and sanction teachers based on their classroom performance. The focus on teachers is more than just a logical extension of the standards movement. It is supported by two important findings from teacher quality research: teacher quality (as measured by teacher contributions toward student gains on tests) is the most important schooling factor when it comes to improving student achievement, and teacher quality is a highly variable commodity— some teachers are simply much better than others. These findings, coupled with a large body of research suggesting that typical characteristics used to determine employment and pay (such as experience and credentials) are not strongly correlated with effective teaching, are good reasons to move the policy discussion toward a focus on individual teacher performance.
Tenure is a form of job security for teachers who have "successfully" completed a probationary period. Its primary purpose is to protect "competent" teachers from arbitrary nonrenewal of contract for reasons unrelated to the educational process -- personal beliefs, personality conflicts with administrators or school board members, and the like.
To operate an effective school system while remaining within the spirit of tenure agreements, school boards and administrators should follow these two key elements:
1. Establish clearly defined standards for probationary teachers and monitor those teachers carefully. If the teachers fail to maintain those standards and remediation does not work, the teachers in question should be released before they acquire tenure.
If this were followed in IPS, then we'd never have so-called poor teachers who gain tenure. Administrators currently do not use the avenues available to them. Not all teachers should automatically receive tenure just because their principals lack the energy or courage to recommend 'no tenure'.
2. If a tenured teacher fails to maintain the necessary standards, and remediation does not work, then administrators should scrupulously follow due process in presenting their case before the school board. This includes carefully documenting any charges brought against the teacher.
IPS has a PIP policy; however, few building administrators take advantage of it. Rather, the principals merely shuffle their bad teachers to other schools. Administrators are lazy about documenting poor performance and would rather take the easy route.
Yes, IPS does have a few really bad teachers who have tenure; however, IPS has some really lazy administrators who will not take the time and energy to enforce the PIP.
I agree with your post. Guidelines and policies are in place for teachers gaining tenure with IPS. Guidelines and policies via the PIP are also in place for releasing a tenured teacher from his/her contract.
It's a given that we all know there are a few really poor, even incompetent, teachers within our tenured ranks. Many of these 'few' really poor teachers have worked no where else other than within IPS.
So, that leads us to a couple of questions: 'Why did they receive tenure in the first place?' and if, per chance, they were competent at one time but no longer competent, 'Why are they still employed by IPS as classroom teachers?'
Teachers do not police their own; administrators are paid handsomely to do that unpleasant task. Evidently we must have a large number of administrators who are not performing their contracted responsibilities. If they followed the guidelines and policies in place, then IPS would have no incompetent teachers.
Unfortunately many IPS administrators appear to want to do only things that please them, those comfortable easy things; however, monitoring teachers' performances is part and parcel of being the instructional leader of a school. Being an administrator is not always fun, not always easy, not a popularity contest, and definitely not for the meek, the lazy, and those who lack professional courage. Monitoring teachers, documenting teacher performance, and building a paper trail of evidence all take time, take patience, take courage, and take professionalism at its highest level.
Yes, we have a few bad teachers; however, we have a large number of building principals who are shirking their duties by not purging the bad teachers from the IPS payroll.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. A few good teachers had to suffer through Larry Yarrell's shuffling off a really, really bad sped teacher a couple of years ago. This teacher was on a PIP, but Yarrell sent him to another school. (that's not following the guidelines, now is it? If a principal places a teacher on a PIP, then that principal cannot just send him/her onto another school w/out first working w/the teacher)
To add insult to injury, Larry Yarrell said directly to my face that 'this teacher' was an "early Christmas gift". I tucked this statement into my memory bank, and I'll always think of Larry Yarrell as a total a%# hole.
Dr. White and Michael Brown may think Larry Yarrell is a stellar example of an urban school district administrator, but I'll never forget Yarrell's statement made in the hallway of NWHS.
It is ludicrous to create a situation where any persons job is protected regardless of poor performance. Whether it is referred to as "tenure" or any other term is irrelevant. If tenure exists but there are still procedures in place to circumvent it, then it becomes just another meaningless layer of bureaucracy. So what's the point?
Teacher tenure protects teachers from fickle administrators, but it also protects a far larger number of teachers who should be sent out to pasture.
Originally the concept of teacher tenure was established for university professors to protect their academic freedom in teaching and primarily in their academic research. K-12 teachers don't really have the issue of academic freedom because we have state mandated standards which guide our teaching and seldom would any of us be conducting truly academic research that would impact the receiving of funds for our institution.
Frankly, I'm unsure how K-12 teachers ever came under the tenure system as it now exists here in Indiana.
Personally, I'm a tenured teacher in four separate states because my spouse's career entailed our moving frequently. As a result, I can attest to the fact that different states have different guidelines for acquiring tenure. Some states offer tenure after 3 years; others after 5 years. One state accepted my tenure after only 1 year because I came to the job with tenure from another state.
My experience with gaining tenure in IPS was interesting. If my memory serves me correctly regarding IPS, I was observed/evaluated formally in IPS on only two separate occasions over a five year period. Only one of those evaluations was rigorous, by my terms. The other one was what I term a 'drive by' evaluation performed by an incompetent (my opinion) administrator. I 'passed' both evaluations. Big deal!
I work with a tenured "teacher" who is such a bully, administration submits to her rants and raves.
This "teacher" would be out tomorrow if anyone with balls (no, I have none) were to witness this person's loud taunts and tirades. These tantrums are delivered equally to students and staff members alike.
Her students tread carefully, walking on eggs, striving to prevent public verbal humiliation for themselves or their peers.
Yes, her classes are quiet and well-behaved. The children cringe while entering. The looks on their faces betray their relief at surviving one more day of belittling.
This person is an equal opportunity bully. She justifies it, since it worked in "the old school."
That's why it's in the past, and not recommended for use in today's successful educational environments.
She isn't a great educator because she's been employed for thirty-plus years. She simply hasn't met the adminstrator who will stand up to her.
There's hope for all of us next year. Our children deserve it.
@Interesting someone is always talking about putting teachers out to pasture.
Even the great Man O' War and the other KY Derby and Triple Crown winners eventually were put out to pasture, weren't they?
There comes a defining moment in every person's professional life when he or she recognizes it's time to leave, time to haul it in, time to call it quits, time to go home, time to hang it up, or time to quit while at the top of one's game.
"She isn't a great educator because she's been employed for thirty-plus years." Do you mean this the way you wrote it, or is your writing that poor? If that is what you meant to say, please tell me what your plans are when you reach that critical 29th year of employment. I've worked with some really lousy, lazy, whiny and not too bright young teachers and some amazing, energetic and really intelligent oldies but goodies.
@above post..."She isn't a great educator because she's been employed for thirty-plus years."
I comprehend the meaning from the poster you just indirectly bashed. Frequently, teachers believe because they have taught 'x number of years' and they have advanced degrees, that they're immune to all manner of critical comments, whether constructive or otherwise.
I've taught in public schools for 28 years and have advanced degrees; however, trust me here, I can't hold a candle to some of the young teachers I'm associated with on a daily basis. I'm heartened when I work with some of these young folks and witness the ability they possess to bring out the best in our inner city students.
I'm never too old or too jaded to recognize talent when it presents itself right before my eyes. Conversely, I also work with a few 'old dogs' who couldn't learn a new trick if their lives depended upon it.
No, I didn't put this teacher on a PIP because Yarrell had already done that. I don't believe there's such a thing as 'double PIPPING' or PIPPED to the 2nd power.
Larry PIPPED the guy; Larry PASSED the guy along like a hot potato. The hot potato is floating around somewhere in IPS as I write. Be careful; don't burn your hands if he floats your way.
I never said there were no good young teachers. I did not say that all older teachers with advanced degrees were good. What I am saying is that many years of experience does not mean that a teacher is burned out or lazy. Being young does not mean that a teacher is awesome. Generalizing is generally bad.
If things get bad enough for a teacher, trust me they'll quit anyway. I've seen it happen. When the staff is tired of carrying the person and the principal "stacks the deck" by giving them the worst group of kids to go along with poor evaluations.They'll leave. Nobody wants to be where they are not liked nor appreciated. I've seen teachers done this way in several school districts. Why would you show up for work every day if you had the worst students in the school, teachers who didn't support you and a principal who wanted you gone? This method works no matter how cruel it may sound. That's why I laugh at the tenure comments. Tenure means nothing when you face conditions like this every work day. One thing I have learned about this profession is that few agree on who the best teachers are and who isn't and there is plenty of professional jealousy to go around.You rarely get people to agree. Same with parents. I've seen five parents dislike a teacher and want them fired where 10 parents like the teacher. So what?? It's all subjective. Rarely have I seen these "young, energetic teachers." They are usually the first out the door on a Friday and more concerned about their love life or their "first big paycheck on the job." I'm not knocking them but if you are a young,single person in this big city, you won't be volunteering for PTO duty most nights. They are the first ones to look for a new career and most likely to leave.The ones that survive- deserve the tenure if they are GOOD!
"She isn't a great educator because she's been employed for thirty-plus years." Do you mean this the way you wrote it, or is your writing that poor? If that is what you meant to say, please tell me what your plans are when you reach that critical 29th year of employment.
To the responder of my post: Let me rephrase my sentence, please.
Being employed for thirty-plus years does not automatically mean an individual is a great teacher.
An analogy would be, "A thirty-year-old car does not make it a valuable classic." (Think Pinto/Vega/Yugo)
As for my "critical 29th year on employment", I don't remember exactly what my plans were back then, other than creating Curriculum Mapping for our reading adoption and aligning my lessons to state academic standards.
What will your plans be if you make it to that milestone?
I don't think there is really a great deal of discrepancy about who is good or not. Granted, there will always be disagreement about the priority of differentiation, group work, lecture, homework, etc. so we might disagree about who are the great versus the good or the mediocre versus the horrible. But if you had every principal, teacher, parent, and student put every teacher they knew into two categories "top half" or "bottom half" the same names would consistently show up in each category. (And the best and the worst are the very new and the "seasoned." The new teachers can be the most ill-prepared and inexperienced, or they can be the most idealistic and driven. Seasoned teachers can be the masters of their game or they can be bitter, tired, and unwilling to change with the times. To me, it's not that young or old is better or worse. But a young bad teacher might improve. An old bad one very rarely improves, because he/she doesn't think he/she is the problem. He/she thinks the system, kids, and parents need to adapt to the old ways of doing things.
We really don't have tenure in Indiana anymore. All teachers can be fired if they have an administrator who is willing to follow the adopted procedures and document. It is a serious step to fire a teacher and should not be easy but it should be doable as there are teachers [a few] who ned to be fired. It is sad that most administrators want to complain about a teacher but are not willing to put the effort into following the process for dismissal. The breakdown happens with the administration. Now if we only had a procedure for incompetent school board members.
If building level administrators followed the guidelines and policies currently in place for removing incompetent teachers, then IPS would have no incompetent teachers.
Unfortunately many IPS administrators appear to want to do only things that please them, those things within their comfort zones; however, monitoring teachers' performances is part and parcel of being the instructional leader of a school. Being an administrator is not always fun, not always easy, not a popularity contest, and definitely not for the apathetic, the lazy, and those who lack professional courage. Monitoring teachers, documenting teacher performance, and building a paper trail of evidence all take time, take patience, take courage, and take professionalism at its highest level.
Yes, we have a few bad teachers; however, we have a large number of building principals who are shirking their duties by not purging the bad teachers from the IPS payroll.
The hardest part of working in IPS is knowing that the cultural is dysfunctional because poo rolls downhill. When a superintendent thinks it's ok to badmouth particular schools and then not support the necessary changes, something is wrong. Dr. White, lead by example. If you want to build confidence in your teaching staff, talk to them like humans, not like dogs. My grandmother always said you get more with honey than with vinegar; a little more care in your approach would go a long, long way.
This is really long, but it's news and worth reading. ______________________________________________
By Dorie Turner, Associated Press Writer ATLANTA — The Obama administration unveiled its plan Saturday to radically change his predecessor's No Child Left Behind law in hopes of replacing an accountability system that in the last decade has tagged more than a third of schools as failing and created a hodgepodge of sometimes weak academic standards among states. The changes would dismantle the 2002 law championed by President George W. Bush, moving away from punishing schools that don't meet benchmarks and instead focusing on rewarding schools for progress, particularly with poor and minority students. The blueprint calls for states to adopt standards that ensure students are ready for college or a career rather than grade-level proficiency -- the focus of the current law.
"Unless we take action -- unless we step up -- there are countless children who will never realize their full talent and potential," Obama said during a video address on Saturday. "I don't accept that future for them. And I don't accept that future for the United States of America."
The blueprint also would allow states to use subjects other than reading and mathematics as part of their measurements for meeting federal goals, pleasing many education groups that have said No Child Left Behind encouraged teachers not to focus on history, art, science, social studies and other important subjects.
And, for the first time in the law's 45-year history, the White House is proposing a $4 billion increase in federal education spending, most of which would go to increase the competition among states for grant money and move away from formula-based funding.
Obama's plan.
"This blueprint lays the right markers to help us reset the bar for our students and the nation," Miller said in a prepared statement.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan briefed a handful of governors, lawmakers and education groups on the plan Friday, including Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue, a Republican.
"The governor is very supportive of the direction the secretary is going," said Perdue's spokesman Chris Schrimpf.
A few other highlights from the blueprint:
_ By 2020, all students graduating from high school would need to be ready for college or a career. That's a shift away from the current law, which calls for all students to be performing at grade level in reading and math by 2014.
_ Give more rewards -- money and flexibility -- to high-poverty schools that are seeing big gains in student achievement and use them as a model for other schools in low-income neighborhoods that struggle with performance.
_ Punish the lowest-performing 5 percent of schools using aggressive measures, such as having the state take over federal funding for poor students, replacing the principal and half the teaching staff or closing the school altogether.
_ Duncan has said the name No Child Left Behind will be dropped because it is associated with a harsh law that punishes schools for not reaching benchmarks even if they've made big gains. He said the administration will work with Congress to come up with a new name.
Amy Wilkins, a vice president with The Education Trust in Washington, D.C., called the blueprint a "culture shift."
"One of the things America has not been clear about is what k-12 is supposed to do," Wilkins said. "In this, we're saying K-12 is supposed to prepare kids for college and meaningful careers."
NCLB was criticized by educators for focusing too much on testing and not enough on learning. Daniel Domenech, executive director of the American Association of School Administrators, said he is glad to see No Child Left Behind go away.
___
Associated Press Writer Christine Armario in Miami contributed to this report.
Wonderful, I loved the statement "or a career", instead of acting like everyone of our students have the cognitive abilities to handle the Core 40 requirements and college. Nothing is wrong with a technical school or a career in the "trades". Look to Europe and the UK, they understand that not everyone in ready for 4 to 8 years in college. I still remember the parents with a child who had a Full Scale IQ of 53, that child was going to medical school, per the parents and the IEP? Yes, this is the junk that we are placing in IEP's now?
Someone with an IQ of 53 usually has trouble moving beyond second grade academically and can never be expected to be unsupervised. To put this in perspective, 53 is right about the average IQ for someone with Down Syndrome. So you're probably remembering that score incorrectly. If not, you should report that information (IQ score and IEP) to legal authorities, because there it would indicate something fraudulent going on.
Check out the March copy of the Newsweek headlines which read, "Fire All of the Bad Teachers." It was some bogus report on how New Orleans schools were outperforming public schools. It even mentioned something about how Lawrence Schools in Indianapolis were keeping bad teachers on the payroll. Teachers who kept porn and even cocaine in their classrooms!! It said that it was a "no-brainer" to make teacher evaluations based on a test score. Of course who knows, 90% of students passing could have been considered "underperforming" to them. I never paid much attention to Newsweek so I looked up past articles and the right wing slant made me laugh. In other words, it was all about politics. There were no miracle cures or ideas about how one either became "bad" or "good" other than union=bad non-union= good. After finishing ISTEP this past week I didn't see many students who I felt understood the importance of the test. Nothing short of bribing them to at least "try" was a necessity. I've never seen so many kids on the retention list this year either. It's like parents and students don't "get it" until you've gotten to this step. This is pathetic. It has to stop. It should not get to this point. It's like the ONLY thing we teachers can do before everyone wakes up!! By then it's too late.
@I still remember the parents with a child who had a Full Scale IQ of 53, that child was going to medical school, per the parents and the IEP? Yes, this is the junk that we are placing in IEP's now?
I hear you loud and clear. I'm a special educator, one of those SpEd Coaches in fact, and I've witnessed here in IPS the most atrocious Case Conferences conducted by TOR's (teachers of record) who do not address the realities of the student's cognitive abilities.
Parents arrive for the ACR without the slightest clue of what their child is capable of attaining, even though the child has been in special education classes since early elementary school. The mom, usually since dad does not present himself, will say during the transition planning piece that she wants her child to attend college and become a pediatrician, a sports attorney, an NFL player, an NBA player, an engineer, an architect, etc.
For the record, I'm speaking about students with a full-scale IQ's less than 90.
Not being a person who's ever wished to place a cap on a child's attainment or goals, I do realize the difference between realistic attainment/goals and unrealistic attainment/goals.
Usually, when a parent presents with such unrealistic post-secondary goals for the child, I document in writing whatever they say, but then I ask them for 'Plan B' just in case the child doesn't make the NFL or is not accepted to medical school or law school. Mentioning a 'Plan B' usually opens the dialogue about realistic expectations and goals for the child.
@Someone with an IQ of 53 usually has trouble moving beyond second grade academically and can never be expected to be unsupervised.
A Full Scale IQ of 53 is not indicative of a person who needs supervision for life. However, a FS IQ of 53 would limit significantly the academic progress of a student through the Indiana Course of Studies toward attaining a Core 40 High School Diploma.
At present in IPS, a student with a Full Scale IQ of 53 is classified as Mildly Mentally Handicapped. That student would be placed in self-contained classes for students with disabilties where they all would be expected to master the Core Content Standards just as a student without disabilities. IPS has made no across the board provisions for those students w/IQ's between 50 and 75. These kids are expected to pass the Core 40 Content classes just as the kids with IQ's of 100 and above.
This will not happen for these kids.
When IPS touts its beliefs about equity, these kids are left behind. There is no way in God's green earth that students with IQ's below 75 can be expected to pass Algebra I, Biology, etc. Yet, IPS turns its head when these facts are presented.
At present, Tech HS does have a class for the 'Gap Students' (the IPS term for these kids w/IQ's between 50 and 75); however, the other high schools are left out of this Gap Program.
Frankly, if a student's IQ is below 75, he/she should not be earning high school credits for content area work in a high school class. The content in self-contained high school classes is so 'modified' that it does not equate to meeting the IN Standards. A teacher can make accommodations, but when 'modifications' (i.e., changes) are made to the content or the curriculum, then the credits are comprised and useless and no longer equivalent to the general education students' requirements.
Adding insult to injury, the sped teachers of self-contained classes at the high school level are seldom 'certified by IN' as highly qualified teachers in that content area. We have too many sped teachers who grant high school credits in 'content areas' who are not remotely qualified or certified in those specific courses.
I'm a senior citizen who is not employed by (and has not been employed by) any school district.
But I do find this blog interesting. I think these recent comments are very fascinating. It sounds to me almost bizarre that children with such low IQs would be expected to be able to master these advanced classes.
I relate it back to my own childhood. I recently was tested (for the first time) and my IQ is about 130.
However, all of the way through school I failed every math class except something called "general math." Translated: "very easy math." I was called by a few teachers and administrators "lazy and stupid." But I tried very hard. I just couldn't understand the subject matter. No matter how hard I tried.
I now know that I had/have a learning disability in math. But I managed to graduate both from high school and college (as a Dean's List student on scholarship) because back then there were ways around taking math and other analytically oriented classes.
I have told many people that I probably could not graduate from high school now with the requirements in math and math-related subjects. This is after I have had a professional career in which I have won multiple awards for my work and have been successful by most standards.
As an old person with a lifelong learning disability, I feel sorry for these special education children who are expected to pass classes that they just don't have the ability to master.
Education today seems to me to translate into one word: politics. There seems to be very little real insight into the problems in education from politicians, the news media, much of the public.
And teachers sometimes seem to me to be blamed for every problem in society. I guess they're an easy and convenient scapegoat.
Students who have a diagnosis as learning disabled have average or above IQs. With support most can pass the regular classes. The students who really are being cheated are those who are diagnosed Mildly Mentally Handicapped. They have little or no chance of doing so even with extra support. Yet we continue to write IEPs stating that they will do so when we know that they are very unlikely to do so. The former Director of Special Education even attempted to require that all of these students be placed in regular classes. Some of the schools still adhere to her misguide attempts and theith MiMH students are suffering.
The MiMH students are suffering also in self-contained special education core content classes at the high school level because the curriculum is the same as regular ed classes, the standards are the same as for regular ed classes, etc. The only discernible difference is that there are fewer students in the class. Unfortunately, most of the high school level self-contained teachers of content area classes are NOT certified to teach the content area in which they're placed. We have Special Ed high school teachers delivering instruction in Algebra I and II who have no certification in math. We have Special Ed high school teachers delivering instruction in Biology who have no certification in any sciences.
The greater question is 'why does IPS have students with IQ's below 75 in Algebra I and Algebra II classes? Why are these same students also expected to pass high school Biology? Have you tried to read and comprehend the Biology text? It's impossible for students w/reading levels at the 1st and 2nd grade levels.
These MiMH students will never earn a Core 40 Diploma unless someone grants them a 'very generous waiver' and/or simply gives them passing grades for 'seat time', and this statement is coming from a person who does not believe in placing caps on a student's ability. Rather, it comes from a dead-on honest and straight-up sped certified person who's pragmatic and practical.
IPS needs to do something proactive for these lower functioning MiMH high school students before they 'drop out' because they can't read, can't write, and can't do math beyond the 4th grade level.
I'm not an alarmist; however, when I see high school sped students who can't do 4th grade math even with a calculator, then I'm absolutely beside myself with wonder concerning why IPS continues to mandate these MiMH students to languish in Core 40 self-contained classes.
Inclusion is a valid level of service delivery for some students with disabiliites; however, it's not the only level of service nor is it always appropriate for all students with disabilties.
Unless a student with disabilities has the cognitive ability to comprehend and do the work in the regular classroom setting with all the requisite accommodations in effect, then inclusion will not be a successful placement.
A few IPS high schools have opted to be full inclusion schools. I'm unsure how this is working out for the students involved. Howe is a full inclusion school; any word from Howe regarding the full inclusion model?
Eugene White needs to ask his own daughter about how it's working out teaching Mildy Mentally Handicapped students grade 7 math following the IN Standards for Math? He needs to sit down with her and quiz her about her students who cannot do the four basic math operations, even with the use of calculators. He's missing a golden opportunity to hear it straight from the mouth of someone he knows and trusts. He needs to hear about kids who can't even remember their home addresses or phone numbers but who are expected to master Indiana content standards in math.
I agree with the poster re: inclusion. It can be very successful and many of our students are doing reasonably well in that placement. The problem is that in order to save money, too many students are being placed in inclusion inappropriately. Students who use their fingers to add and subtract simple problems now find themselves in Algebra and Geometry. It is not their fault. It is their disability and they are entitled to an appropriate placement.
The problem is that MiMH students are still expected to master grade level standards and take benchmark tests and scrimmages with their grade level peers, although they are usually a minimum of two grade levels behind their actual grade placement. MiMH students will start to make academic gains when they are appropriately placed, (generally inclusion settings are not at all beneficial) and teachers are allowed to teach them at their actual grade level, not to the standards/the test.
So what exactly did the email mean about tenure? How is it changing? Just that building senority is not in effect OR that they can rif ANYONE regardless of years served? Just trying to figure it out.
From the 'Urban Institute Research of Record' published November, 2008.
ReplyDeleteAssessing the Potential of Using Value‐Added
Estimates of Teacher Job Performance for Making
Tenure Decisions
BRIEF 3
NOVEMBER 2008
DAN GOLDHABER AND MICHAEL HANSEN
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BOTHELL, CENTER ON REINVENTING PUBLIC EDUCATION
USING TEACHER EFFECTS ESTIMATES FOR
HIGH-STAKES PERSONNEL DECISIONS
Well over a decade into the standards movement,
the idea of holding schools accountable for
results is now being pushed to a logical, if
controversial, end point: the implementation of
policies aimed at holding individual teachers (not
just schools) accountable for results. Some have
called for reforms such as pay for performance
or changes to teacher tenure to make it easier to
reward and sanction teachers based on their
classroom performance. The focus on teachers is
more than just a logical extension of the
standards movement. It is supported by two
important findings from teacher quality research:
teacher quality (as measured by teacher
contributions toward student gains on tests) is
the most important schooling factor when it
comes to improving student achievement, and
teacher quality is a highly variable commodity—
some teachers are simply much better than
others. These findings, coupled with a large body
of research suggesting that typical characteristics
used to determine employment and pay (such as
experience and credentials) are not strongly
correlated with effective teaching, are good
reasons to move the policy discussion toward a
focus on individual teacher performance.
Tenure is a form of job security for teachers who have "successfully" completed a probationary period. Its primary purpose is to protect "competent" teachers from arbitrary nonrenewal of contract for reasons unrelated to the educational process -- personal beliefs, personality conflicts with administrators or school board members, and the like.
ReplyDeleteTo operate an effective school system while remaining within the spirit of tenure agreements, school boards and administrators should follow these two key elements:
1. Establish clearly defined standards for probationary teachers and monitor those teachers carefully. If the teachers fail to maintain those standards and remediation does not work, the teachers in question should be released before they acquire tenure.
If this were followed in IPS, then we'd never have so-called poor teachers who gain tenure. Administrators currently do not use the avenues available to them. Not all teachers should automatically receive tenure just because their principals lack the energy or courage to recommend 'no tenure'.
2. If a tenured teacher fails to maintain the necessary standards, and remediation does not work, then administrators should scrupulously follow due process in presenting their case before the school board. This includes carefully documenting any charges brought against the teacher.
IPS has a PIP policy; however, few building administrators take advantage of it. Rather, the principals merely shuffle their bad teachers to other schools. Administrators are lazy about documenting poor performance and would rather take the easy route.
Yes, IPS does have a few really bad teachers who have tenure; however, IPS has some really lazy administrators who will not take the time and energy to enforce the PIP.
Amen!
ReplyDelete@Tenure is a form of...
ReplyDeleteI agree with your post. Guidelines and policies are in place for teachers gaining tenure with IPS. Guidelines and policies via the PIP are also in place for releasing a tenured teacher from his/her contract.
It's a given that we all know there are a few really poor, even incompetent, teachers within our tenured ranks. Many of these 'few' really poor teachers have worked no where else other than within IPS.
So, that leads us to a couple of questions: 'Why did they receive tenure in the first place?' and if, per chance, they were competent at one time but no longer competent, 'Why are they still employed by IPS as classroom teachers?'
Teachers do not police their own; administrators are paid handsomely to do that unpleasant task. Evidently we must have a large number of administrators who are not performing their contracted responsibilities. If they followed the guidelines and policies in place, then IPS would have no incompetent teachers.
Unfortunately many IPS administrators appear to want to do only things that please them, those comfortable easy things; however, monitoring teachers' performances is part and parcel of being the instructional leader of a school. Being an administrator is not always fun, not always easy, not a popularity contest, and definitely not for the meek, the lazy, and those who lack professional courage. Monitoring teachers, documenting teacher performance, and building a paper trail of evidence all take time, take patience, take courage, and take professionalism at its highest level.
Yes, we have a few bad teachers; however, we have a large number of building principals who are shirking their duties by not purging the bad teachers from the IPS payroll.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. A few good teachers had to suffer through Larry Yarrell's shuffling off a really, really bad sped teacher a couple of years ago. This teacher was on a PIP, but Yarrell sent him to another school. (that's not following the guidelines, now is it? If a principal places a teacher on a PIP, then that principal cannot just send him/her onto another school w/out first working w/the teacher)
ReplyDeleteTo add insult to injury, Larry Yarrell said directly to my face that 'this teacher' was an "early Christmas gift". I tucked this statement into my memory bank, and I'll always think of Larry Yarrell as a total a%# hole.
Dr. White and Michael Brown may think Larry Yarrell is a stellar example of an urban school district administrator, but I'll never forget Yarrell's statement made in the hallway of NWHS.
It is ludicrous to create a situation where any persons job is protected regardless of poor performance. Whether it is referred to as "tenure" or any other term is irrelevant. If tenure exists but there are still procedures in place to circumvent it, then it becomes just another meaningless layer of bureaucracy. So what's the point?
ReplyDeleteTeacher tenure protects teachers from fickle administrators, but it also protects a far larger number of teachers who should be sent out to pasture.
ReplyDeleteOriginally the concept of teacher tenure was established for university professors to protect their academic freedom in teaching and primarily in their academic research. K-12 teachers don't really have the issue of academic freedom because we have state mandated standards which guide our teaching and seldom would any of us be conducting truly academic research that would impact the receiving of funds for our institution.
Frankly, I'm unsure how K-12 teachers ever came under the tenure system as it now exists here in Indiana.
Personally, I'm a tenured teacher in four separate states because my spouse's career entailed our moving frequently. As a result, I can attest to the fact that different states have different guidelines for acquiring tenure. Some states offer tenure after 3 years; others after 5 years. One state accepted my tenure after only 1 year because I came to the job with tenure from another state.
My experience with gaining tenure in IPS was interesting. If my memory serves me correctly regarding IPS, I was observed/evaluated formally in IPS on only two separate occasions over a five year period. Only one of those evaluations was rigorous, by my terms. The other one was what I term a 'drive by' evaluation performed by an incompetent (my opinion) administrator. I 'passed' both evaluations. Big deal!
I work with a tenured "teacher" who is such a bully, administration submits to her rants and raves.
ReplyDeleteThis "teacher" would be out tomorrow if anyone with balls (no, I have none) were to witness this person's loud taunts and tirades. These tantrums are delivered equally to students and staff members alike.
Her students tread carefully, walking on eggs, striving to prevent public verbal humiliation for themselves or their peers.
Yes, her classes are quiet and well-behaved. The children cringe while entering. The looks on their faces betray their relief at surviving one more day of belittling.
This person is an equal opportunity bully. She justifies it, since it worked in "the old school."
That's why it's in the past, and not recommended for use in today's successful educational environments.
She isn't a great educator because she's been employed for thirty-plus years. She simply hasn't met the adminstrator who will stand up to her.
There's hope for all of us next year. Our children deserve it.
Interesting someone is always talking about putting teachers out to pasture.
ReplyDelete@Interesting someone is always talking about putting teachers out to pasture.
ReplyDeleteEven the great Man O' War and the other KY Derby and Triple Crown winners eventually were put out to pasture, weren't they?
There comes a defining moment in every person's professional life when he or she recognizes it's time to leave, time to haul it in, time to call it quits, time to go home, time to hang it up, or time to quit while at the top of one's game.
"She isn't a great educator because she's been employed for thirty-plus years." Do you mean this the way you wrote it, or is your writing that poor? If that is what you meant to say, please tell me what your plans are when you reach that critical 29th year of employment. I've worked with some really lousy, lazy, whiny and not too bright young teachers and some amazing, energetic and really intelligent oldies but goodies.
ReplyDeleteSo when you got this Christmas gift from L. Yarrell, you made classroom visits and put the teacher on a PIP, right?
ReplyDelete@above post..."She isn't a great educator because she's been employed for thirty-plus years."
ReplyDeleteI comprehend the meaning from the poster you just indirectly bashed. Frequently, teachers believe because they have taught 'x number of years' and they have advanced degrees, that they're immune to all manner of critical comments, whether constructive or otherwise.
I've taught in public schools for 28 years and have advanced degrees; however, trust me here, I can't hold a candle to some of the young teachers I'm associated with on a daily basis. I'm heartened when I work with some of these young folks and witness the ability they possess to bring out the best in our inner city students.
I'm never too old or too jaded to recognize talent when it presents itself right before my eyes. Conversely, I also work with a few 'old dogs' who couldn't learn a new trick if their lives depended upon it.
Re: Christmas gift from L. Yarrell
ReplyDeleteNo, I didn't put this teacher on a PIP because Yarrell had already done that. I don't believe there's such a thing as 'double PIPPING' or PIPPED to the 2nd power.
Larry PIPPED the guy; Larry PASSED the guy along like a hot potato. The hot potato is floating around somewhere in IPS as I write. Be careful; don't burn your hands if he floats your way.
I never said there were no good young teachers. I did not say that all older teachers with advanced degrees were good. What I am saying is that many years of experience does not mean that a teacher is burned out or lazy. Being young does not mean that a teacher is awesome. Generalizing is generally bad.
ReplyDeleteIf things get bad enough for a teacher, trust me they'll quit anyway. I've seen it happen. When the staff is tired of carrying the person and the principal "stacks the deck" by giving them the worst group of kids to go along with poor evaluations.They'll leave. Nobody wants to be where they are not liked nor appreciated. I've seen teachers done this way in several school districts. Why would you show up for work every day if you had the worst students in the school, teachers who didn't support you and a principal who wanted you gone? This method works no matter how cruel it may sound. That's why I laugh at the tenure comments. Tenure means nothing when you face conditions like this every work day. One thing I have learned about this profession is that few agree on who the best teachers are and who isn't and there is plenty of professional jealousy to go around.You rarely get people to agree. Same with parents. I've seen five parents dislike a teacher and want them fired where 10 parents like the teacher. So what?? It's all subjective. Rarely have I seen these "young, energetic teachers." They are usually the first out the door on a Friday and more concerned about their love life or their "first big paycheck on the job." I'm not knocking them but if you are a young,single person in this big city, you won't be volunteering for PTO duty most nights. They are the first ones to look for a new career and most likely to leave.The ones that survive- deserve the tenure if they are GOOD!
ReplyDelete"She isn't a great educator because she's been employed for thirty-plus years." Do you mean this the way you wrote it, or is your writing that poor? If that is what you meant to say, please tell me what your plans are when you reach that critical 29th year of employment.
ReplyDeleteTo the responder of my post:
Let me rephrase my sentence, please.
Being employed for thirty-plus years does not automatically mean an individual is a great teacher.
An analogy would be, "A thirty-year-old car does not make it a valuable classic." (Think Pinto/Vega/Yugo)
As for my "critical 29th year on employment", I don't remember exactly what my plans were back then, other than creating Curriculum Mapping for our reading adoption and aligning my lessons to state academic standards.
What will your plans be if you make it to that milestone?
Yes, generalizing is a dangerous practice.
I don't think there is really a great deal of discrepancy about who is good or not. Granted, there will always be disagreement about the priority of differentiation, group work, lecture, homework, etc. so we might disagree about who are the great versus the good or the mediocre versus the horrible. But if you had every principal, teacher, parent, and student put every teacher they knew into two categories "top half" or "bottom half" the same names would consistently show up in each category. (And the best and the worst are the very new and the "seasoned." The new teachers can be the most ill-prepared and inexperienced, or they can be the most idealistic and driven. Seasoned teachers can be the masters of their game or they can be bitter, tired, and unwilling to change with the times. To me, it's not that young or old is better or worse. But a young bad teacher might improve. An old bad one very rarely improves, because he/she doesn't think he/she is the problem. He/she thinks the system, kids, and parents need to adapt to the old ways of doing things.
ReplyDeleteWe really don't have tenure in Indiana anymore. All teachers can be fired if they have an administrator who is willing to follow the adopted procedures and document. It is a serious step to fire a teacher and should not be easy but it should be doable as there are teachers [a few] who ned to be fired. It is sad that most administrators want to complain about a teacher but are not willing to put the effort into following the process for dismissal. The breakdown happens with the administration. Now if we only had a procedure for incompetent school board members.
ReplyDeleteIf building level administrators followed the guidelines and policies currently in place for removing incompetent teachers, then IPS would have no incompetent teachers.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately many IPS administrators appear to want to do only things that please them, those things within their comfort zones; however, monitoring teachers' performances is part and parcel of being the instructional leader of a school. Being an administrator is not always fun, not always easy, not a popularity contest, and definitely not for the apathetic, the lazy, and those who lack professional courage. Monitoring teachers, documenting teacher performance, and building a paper trail of evidence all take time, take patience, take courage, and take professionalism at its highest level.
Yes, we have a few bad teachers; however, we have a large number of building principals who are shirking their duties by not purging the bad teachers from the IPS payroll.
The hardest part of working in IPS is knowing that the cultural is dysfunctional because poo rolls downhill. When a superintendent thinks it's ok to badmouth particular schools and then not support the necessary changes, something is wrong.
ReplyDeleteDr. White, lead by example. If you want to build confidence in your teaching staff, talk to them like humans, not like dogs. My grandmother always said you get more with honey than with vinegar; a little more care in your approach would go a long, long way.
This is really long, but it's news and worth reading.
ReplyDelete______________________________________________
By Dorie Turner, Associated Press Writer
ATLANTA — The Obama administration unveiled its plan Saturday to radically change his predecessor's No Child Left Behind law in hopes of replacing an accountability system that in the last decade has tagged more than a third of schools as failing and created a hodgepodge of sometimes weak academic standards among states.
The changes would dismantle the 2002 law championed by President George W. Bush, moving away from punishing schools that don't meet benchmarks and instead focusing on rewarding schools for progress, particularly with poor and minority students. The blueprint calls for states to adopt standards that ensure students are ready for college or a career rather than grade-level proficiency -- the focus of the current law.
"Unless we take action -- unless we step up -- there are countless children who will never realize their full talent and potential," Obama said during a video address on Saturday. "I don't accept that future for them. And I don't accept that future for the United States of America."
The blueprint also would allow states to use subjects other than reading and mathematics as part of their measurements for meeting federal goals, pleasing many education groups that have said No Child Left Behind encouraged teachers not to focus on history, art, science, social studies and other important subjects.
And, for the first time in the law's 45-year history, the White House is proposing a $4 billion increase in federal education spending, most of which would go to increase the competition among states for grant money and move away from formula-based funding.
Obama's plan.
"This blueprint lays the right markers to help us reset the bar for our students and the nation," Miller said in a prepared statement.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan briefed a handful of governors, lawmakers and education groups on the plan Friday, including Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue, a Republican.
"The governor is very supportive of the direction the secretary is going," said Perdue's spokesman Chris Schrimpf.
A few other highlights from the blueprint:
_ By 2020, all students graduating from high school would need to be ready for college or a career. That's a shift away from the current law, which calls for all students to be performing at grade level in reading and math by 2014.
_ Give more rewards -- money and flexibility -- to high-poverty schools that are seeing big gains in student achievement and use them as a model for other schools in low-income neighborhoods that struggle with performance.
_ Punish the lowest-performing 5 percent of schools using aggressive measures, such as having the state take over federal funding for poor students, replacing the principal and half the teaching staff or closing the school altogether.
_ Duncan has said the name No Child Left Behind will be dropped because it is associated with a harsh law that punishes schools for not reaching benchmarks even if they've made big gains. He said the administration will work with Congress to come up with a new name.
Amy Wilkins, a vice president with The Education Trust in Washington, D.C., called the blueprint a "culture shift."
"One of the things America has not been clear about is what k-12 is supposed to do," Wilkins said. "In this, we're saying K-12 is supposed to prepare kids for college and meaningful careers."
NCLB was criticized by educators for focusing too much on testing and not enough on learning. Daniel Domenech, executive director of the American Association of School Administrators, said he is glad to see No Child Left Behind go away.
___
Associated Press Writer Christine Armario in Miami contributed to this report.
___
Sounds promising!
ReplyDeleteWonderful, I loved the statement "or a career", instead of acting like everyone of our students have the cognitive abilities to handle the Core 40 requirements and college. Nothing is wrong with a technical school or a career in the "trades". Look to Europe and the UK, they understand that not everyone in ready for 4 to 8 years in college. I still remember the parents with a child who had a Full Scale IQ of 53, that child was going to medical school, per the parents and the IEP? Yes, this is the junk that we are placing in IEP's now?
ReplyDeleteYou can't make brains no matter how much we want.
ReplyDeleteSomeone with an IQ of 53 usually has trouble moving beyond second grade academically and can never be expected to be unsupervised. To put this in perspective, 53 is right about the average IQ for someone with Down Syndrome. So you're probably remembering that score incorrectly. If not, you should report that information (IQ score and IEP) to legal authorities, because there it would indicate something fraudulent going on.
ReplyDeleteCheck out the March copy of the Newsweek headlines which read, "Fire All of the Bad Teachers." It was some bogus report on how New Orleans schools were outperforming public schools. It even mentioned something about how Lawrence Schools in Indianapolis were keeping bad teachers on the payroll. Teachers who kept porn and even cocaine in their classrooms!! It said that it was a "no-brainer" to make teacher evaluations based on a test score. Of course who knows, 90% of students passing could have been considered "underperforming" to them. I never paid much attention to Newsweek so I looked up past articles and the right wing slant made me laugh. In other words, it was all about politics. There were no miracle cures or ideas about how one either became "bad" or "good" other than union=bad non-union= good. After finishing ISTEP this past week I didn't see many students who I felt understood the importance of the test. Nothing short of bribing them to at least "try" was a necessity. I've never seen so many kids on the retention list this year either. It's like parents and students don't "get it" until you've gotten to this step. This is pathetic. It has to stop. It should not get to this point. It's like the ONLY thing we teachers can do before everyone wakes up!! By then it's too late.
ReplyDelete@I still remember the parents with a child who had a Full Scale IQ of 53, that child was going to medical school, per the parents and the IEP? Yes, this is the junk that we are placing in IEP's now?
ReplyDeleteI hear you loud and clear. I'm a special educator, one of those SpEd Coaches in fact, and I've witnessed here in IPS the most atrocious Case Conferences conducted by TOR's (teachers of record) who do not address the realities of the student's cognitive abilities.
Parents arrive for the ACR without the slightest clue of what their child is capable of attaining, even though the child has been in special education classes since early elementary school. The mom, usually since dad does not present himself, will say during the transition planning piece that she wants her child to attend college and become a pediatrician, a sports attorney, an NFL player, an NBA player, an engineer, an architect, etc.
For the record, I'm speaking about students with a full-scale IQ's less than 90.
Not being a person who's ever wished to place a cap on a child's attainment or goals, I do realize the difference between realistic attainment/goals and unrealistic attainment/goals.
Usually, when a parent presents with such unrealistic post-secondary goals for the child, I document in writing whatever they say, but then I ask them for 'Plan B' just in case the child doesn't make the NFL or is not accepted to medical school or law school. Mentioning a 'Plan B' usually opens the dialogue about realistic expectations and goals for the child.
@Someone with an IQ of 53 usually has trouble moving beyond second grade academically and can never be expected to be unsupervised.
ReplyDeleteA Full Scale IQ of 53 is not indicative of a person who needs supervision for life. However, a FS IQ of 53 would limit significantly the academic progress of a student through the Indiana Course of Studies toward attaining a Core 40 High School Diploma.
At present in IPS, a student with a Full Scale IQ of 53 is classified as Mildly Mentally Handicapped. That student would be placed in self-contained classes for students with disabilties where they all would be expected to master the Core Content Standards just as a student without disabilities. IPS has made no across the board provisions for those students w/IQ's between 50 and 75. These kids are expected to pass the Core 40 Content classes just as the kids with IQ's of 100 and above.
This will not happen for these kids.
When IPS touts its beliefs about equity, these kids are left behind. There is no way in God's green earth that students with IQ's below 75 can be expected to pass Algebra I, Biology, etc. Yet, IPS turns its head when these facts are presented.
At present, Tech HS does have a class for the 'Gap Students' (the IPS term for these kids w/IQ's between 50 and 75); however, the other high schools are left out of this Gap Program.
Frankly, if a student's IQ is below 75, he/she should not be earning high school credits for content area work in a high school class. The content in self-contained high school classes is so 'modified' that it does not equate to meeting the IN Standards. A teacher can make accommodations, but when 'modifications' (i.e., changes) are made to the content or the curriculum, then the credits are comprised and useless and no longer equivalent to the general education students' requirements.
Adding insult to injury, the sped teachers of self-contained classes at the high school level are seldom 'certified by IN' as highly qualified teachers in that content area. We have too many sped teachers who grant high school credits in 'content areas' who are not remotely qualified or certified in those specific courses.
I'm a senior citizen who is not employed by (and has not been employed by) any school district.
ReplyDeleteBut I do find this blog interesting. I think these recent comments are very fascinating. It sounds to me almost bizarre that children with such low IQs would be expected to be able to master these advanced classes.
I relate it back to my own childhood. I recently was tested (for the first time) and my IQ is about 130.
However, all of the way through school I failed every math class except something called "general math." Translated: "very easy math." I was called by a few teachers and administrators "lazy and stupid." But I tried very hard. I just couldn't understand the subject matter. No matter how hard I tried.
I now know that I had/have a learning disability in math. But I managed to graduate both from high school and college (as a Dean's List student on scholarship) because back then there were ways around taking math and other analytically oriented classes.
I have told many people that I probably could not graduate from high school now with the requirements in math and math-related subjects. This is after I have had a professional career in which I have won multiple awards for my work and have been successful by most standards.
As an old person with a lifelong learning disability, I feel sorry for these special education children who are expected to pass classes that they just don't have the ability to master.
Education today seems to me to translate into one word: politics. There seems to be very little real insight into the problems in education from politicians, the news media, much of the public.
And teachers sometimes seem to me to be blamed for every problem in society. I guess they're an easy and convenient scapegoat.
Students who have a diagnosis as learning disabled have average or above IQs. With support most can pass the regular classes. The students who really are being cheated are those who are diagnosed Mildly Mentally Handicapped. They have little or no chance of doing so even with extra support. Yet we continue to write IEPs stating that they will do so when we know that they are very unlikely to do so. The former Director of Special Education even attempted to require that all of these students be placed in regular classes. Some of the schools still adhere to her misguide attempts and theith MiMH students are suffering.
ReplyDeleteThe MiMH students are suffering also in self-contained special education core content classes at the high school level because the curriculum is the same as regular ed classes, the standards are the same as for regular ed classes, etc. The only discernible difference is that there are fewer students in the class. Unfortunately, most of the high school level self-contained teachers of content area classes are NOT certified to teach the content area in which they're placed. We have Special Ed high school teachers delivering instruction in Algebra I and II who have no certification in math. We have Special Ed high school teachers delivering instruction in Biology who have no certification in any sciences.
ReplyDeleteThe greater question is 'why does IPS have students with IQ's below 75 in Algebra I and Algebra II classes? Why are these same students also expected to pass high school Biology? Have you tried to read and comprehend the Biology text? It's impossible for students w/reading levels at the 1st and 2nd grade levels.
These MiMH students will never earn a Core 40 Diploma unless someone grants them a 'very generous waiver' and/or simply gives them passing grades for 'seat time', and this statement is coming from a person who does not believe in placing caps on a student's ability. Rather, it comes from a dead-on honest and straight-up sped certified person who's pragmatic and practical.
IPS needs to do something proactive for these lower functioning MiMH high school students before they 'drop out' because they can't read, can't write, and can't do math beyond the 4th grade level.
I'm not an alarmist; however, when I see high school sped students who can't do 4th grade math even with a calculator, then I'm absolutely beside myself with wonder concerning why IPS continues to mandate these MiMH students to languish in Core 40 self-contained classes.
Inclusion is a valid level of service delivery for some students with disabiliites; however, it's not the only level of service nor is it always appropriate for all students with disabilties.
ReplyDeleteUnless a student with disabilities has the cognitive ability to comprehend and do the work in the regular classroom setting with all the requisite accommodations in effect, then inclusion will not be a successful placement.
A few IPS high schools have opted to be full inclusion schools. I'm unsure how this is working out for the students involved. Howe is a full inclusion school; any word from Howe regarding the full inclusion model?
Eugene White needs to ask his own daughter about how it's working out teaching Mildy Mentally Handicapped students grade 7 math following the IN Standards for Math? He needs to sit down with her and quiz her about her students who cannot do the four basic math operations, even with the use of calculators. He's missing a golden opportunity to hear it straight from the mouth of someone he knows and trusts. He needs to hear about kids who can't even remember their home addresses or phone numbers but who are expected to master Indiana content standards in math.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the poster re: inclusion. It can be very successful and many of our students are doing reasonably well in that placement. The problem is that in order to save money, too many students are being placed in inclusion inappropriately. Students who use their fingers to add and subtract simple problems now find themselves in Algebra and Geometry. It is not their fault. It is their disability and they are entitled to an appropriate placement.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that MiMH students are still expected to master grade level standards and take benchmark tests and scrimmages with their grade level peers, although they are usually a minimum of two grade levels behind their actual grade placement. MiMH students will start to make academic gains when they are appropriately placed, (generally inclusion settings are not at all beneficial) and teachers are allowed to teach them at their actual grade level, not to the standards/the test.
ReplyDeleteSo what exactly did the email mean about tenure? How is it changing? Just that building senority is not in effect OR that they can rif ANYONE regardless of years served? Just trying to figure it out.
ReplyDelete