Diane Ravitch has a post up on Linda Darling-Hammond testimony at the Vergara trial.  She outlines the criteria for evaluating teachers for tenure and helping struggling teachers:

“Well, it’s important both as a part of a due process expectation; that if somebody is told they’re not meeting a standard, they should have some help to meet that standard.

~~~~~~~

Absolutely.  If a teacher is abusive or grossly inadequate, you want them out.  But if a teacher is good in some areas, but needs help in others, by all means, they should get support and encouragement in those weak areas.  In any line of work, you would expect some guidance from those more experienced.  Why should the teaching profession be any different?

More:

And the third reason is that when you create a system that is not oriented to attract high-quality teachers and support them in their work, that location becomes a very unattractive workplace. And an empirical proof of that is the situation currently in Houston, Texas, which has been firing many teachers at the bottom end of the value-added continuum without creating stronger overall achievement, and finding that they have fewer and fewer people who are willing to come apply for jobs in the district because with the instability of those scores, the inaccuracy and bias that they represent for groups of teachers, it’s become an unattractive place to work.

~~~~~~~~

Word.

This comment by Teacher Ken gets at the heart of teaching and tenure:

I have been the cooperating teacher for five student teachers from the University of Maryland at College Park, three from the undergraduate program and two from the masters’ program. The only one who failed to ‘make it’ was a 4.0 student who refused to listen to the notion that he had to meet the kids where they were in order to be able to inspire/entice them to move further. He dropped out before doing his full load of student teaching.

I have been a building union rep and have served as an informal mentor to both beginning and struggling experienced teachers. I have helped some turn around and have counseled others out of the profession. I have as a union rep helped remove a tenured teacher (who never should have gotten tenure) who was not merely ineffective but a danger to students.

We have those who should never go into teaching – they don’t like kids.

~~~~~~~~

This can’t be stated enough–the pro-Charter, anti-public schools, anti-Teacher’s union mob would like to play on people’s emotions and say that bad teachers get a free ride once they get tenure.

As Diane has stated in the past, tenured teachers are not guaranteed a job, per se, but are guaranteed the right to a fair hearing if charges are made against them.  That seems reasonable to me.

However, I have heard of instances of bad teachers being kept on because the principal was afraid to confront them.  They feel they had to have mountains of evidence to get rid of a bad teacher. It might also be just a clash of personalities…where the child is better suited for another teacher.  The teacher isn’t necessarily bad and the kid isn’t necessarily bad, but they just butt heads.

On the other hand, I would not want to see a teacher sacked over gossip (lack of solid evidence)…because I’ve seen that happen, too, where some big mouth started a rumor and the good teacher left.  He was one of those teachers that really connected with the kids, too.  The gossipmonger was probably jealous of his ability to connect and the resulting popularity.

And Teacher Ken’s point about the 4.0 teaching student is spot on.  You can be the smartest person in the room, but if you don’t like kids and can’t get down to their level to help them learn, you’re in the wrong profession.  (Gee…why does this describe Bill Gates to a “T”…??)