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!

Of Visions and Visionaries

On October 9, 2008 4:49 PM
Anonymous said...

well then if that is your definition of visionary then wouldn't we all be visionaries? we know where we want the system to go and if you read most posts everyone knows how to do it but that does make us fit to do the job...just my thoughts.

thanks for your thoughts.

my thoughts:

let's be honest-- NOT ALL of us has the vision.

SOME are just here 'doing time' until their retirement.

SOME are just here using DCPS resources for free 'masteral degree'.

SOME are just here for 'economic' reasons.

KNOWING where to go doesn't make one a visionary. UNDERSTANDING where and how to go there makes one a visionary. that entails foreseeing the possible strengths/weaknesses and threats/opportunities along the way.

rhee , even before the fall of the proposed contract has already a PLAN B. NOW, that is being a visionary.

parker on the other hand put all his money on the contract and never had a 2nd plan. definitely he has a vision BUT in my opinion— in this case, he failed to be a visionary.

No Winners, Just Dreamers and Whiners

Before you watch the clip: What is GP/Rhee's finish line on the new contract?

After you watched the clip: Who won? Who lost?

The Heat is On

I was browsing and read this article from washingtonpost.com: Teachers' Chief Is in the Hot Seat by Bill Turque.

You can tell that the relationship between WTU President George Parker and Chancellor Michelle Rhee is entering a new level. If sweet-nothing exchanges between them did not attract the union members, try this approach:

Asked whether Rhee is a visionary, Parker paused.

"I think she's young. And she's not had experience in running a large urban school district," he said. "Accordingly, she is going to make mistakes." Most significant among them, Parker said, was sowing fear among teachers.

Hmmm... Real or surreal?