Seven Reasons Why I Like Tenureship

On October 11, 2008 9:50 PM
ms. mindless said...

gen x, obviously, we disagree about the tenure issue. i have been out there looking for a clear and well-reasoned argument for tenure. maybe you can help me? (i am not trying to be sarcastic or funny) people are generally so heated and almost crazy sounding when talking about these issues. what is your logical rationale for tenure? i want to know why you think that tenureship should exist. hope you're having a great weekend!

Ms. Mindless, I’m happy to know you’re looking for "logical rationale" why tenure should exist despite the fact that you have already formulated your own opinion.

It only shows how scholarly and open-minded you are. And I’m flattered that you think of me as one of the educators who can probably offer you a rationalization for tenure.

I'm not sure you will consider them "well-reasoned" but in my humble words, here are my seven reasons:

First and foremost reason: I CAN’T rationalize why tenure should not exist.

Second, Rhee is using it as a NEGATIVE reinforcer. If she is being truthful with her intention to get rid of non-performing teachers, WHY is she abolishing tenure for everybody? There are teachers in the district who are giving more than what are required of them. DON’T these teachers deserve to move beyond probationary status? Why can’t Rhee explore the possibilities of using tenure BOTH as positive and negative reinforcers?

Third, I’m concern of its rippling effect. It’s obvious that the MAIN issue why the contract is not moving forward is the tenure issue. SO FAR, it has brought NOTHING but divisiveness. I’m with her when she said that DCPS students can’t wait any longer. But she wants change too fast, too furious that it seems she’s neglecting the fact that CHANGE is a process and NOT an event. NO ONE CAN FORCE IT. If this malady continues, it will impact the morale of some teachers…then their performance…then students…then…

Fourth, Rhee laid out a plan that lacks details. Words spread “TENURE WILL BE ABOLISHED” without sensible details as to how and why. Then people started engaging in raucous conversation and YET Rhee and GP opted to be quiet or say one-liner statements like “we need to get rid of non-performing teachers” and “this has become a bread and butter issue…” Honestly, did any of these two leaders speak to us, teachers, to clarify this frenzy? Like a real CONVERSATION like a professional to a professional?

Fifth, I believe that tenure and high student achievement can co-exist. They are NOT exclusive ideas. Show me any empirical research or data that says otherwise.

Sixth, there are still other options that have not yet explored (see some of them at my previous comment here). Why implement the extreme if you haven’t tried other options? 90-day process works. I did it twice and kicked a 20+vet teacher OUT of the classroom and OUT of the system. And the other one was in so much pressure that she left the system after merely 4 days in the plan.

And seventh and personal reason, I EARNED my tenure. I earned my Exceeds Expectation from 3 different principals year after year since my first year of teaching. AND I’m not going to let the contract or a chancellor, or a union president steal it away from me just because it/s/he wants to get rid of non-performing veteran teacher. AT LEAST without a good fight. No good teachers-- whether tenured or not-- deserve to be punished or deprived of something JUST BECAUSE of a few dinosaurs. LEADERS, please don't misplace/misuse the principle of accountability.

NOW, CAN ANYONE TELL ME why do we have to abolish tenure aside from the cliche "get rid of non-performing teachers?"

*****
Btw, ms. mindless—yes, I’m enjoying our long weekend. I just actually got home from clubbing. *wink* Enjoy the rest of the weekend!