Firing a teacher for performance is something that should be a last resort. Why? This is not a career people are lining up to do. Sure, we get summers off, but that's because the other 9 months beat us down so bad we need 3 months to recover. So with all the talk about churn in DISD, when, if ever is it acceptable to fire a teacher? Obviously there are automatically fireable offenses like something that does physical/emotional harm to children, something that is inappropriate, or exceedingly unprofessional, but let's focus on performance.
Is getting rid of teachers that aren't "doing their job" a good thing? Absolutely. But how is that determined? Should teachers be held accountable for the scores of a kid that can't read the test? Is it the fault of the teacher that they aren't able to educate a student that refuses to come to class? No. At least that shouldn't be the expectation. But just like our students, there are teachers that quit when things get a little bit harder or change even the slightest bit. Those teachers aren't bad people. They need support, not swift and decisive retaliation. That said, if a superintendent or principal comes along that can actually walk into a classroom, show that their ideas work, and creates a tangible change in student achievement, that should get respect from everyone and that teacher should give it a try. If a teacher refuses to adjust and continues to show no progress, is that grounds for termination? Not if there's been no effort to help that teacher grow outside of telling them they are "doing it wrong."
What about the leadership though? If a principal has no idea how to teach students and isn't able to show the teacher how to implement best practices, should they be able to reprimand teachers for not being able to? Nope. Should principals without the skills to be both and instructional leader and a business leader on the administrative side be hired as principals in the first place? Nope. Should principals be kept at campuses when they are ineffective just for the sake of stability? No, but should they be fired when they haven't been supported or given a chance to show progress? That's also a no.
Firing is serious business because that is a person's livelihood and professional reputation on the line; however, we can all think of someone on our campus that just straight up and down needs to go. That teacher that leaves school half an hour early and leaves their kids unattended because they are just ready to go? Fired. The one that is on their phone all day and just gives their kids a worksheet, no explanation, and gives everyone a zero for talking? Boom fired. That leader that berates everyone, doesn't offer any constructive criticism, doesn't know the kids, doesn't know the staff, and just throws their weight around because they love power and the sound of their own voice? Terminated.
It's ok to expect the best, but you have to model the best. Lead by example, but also be able to support the transition to "exemplar" teacher, student, administrator, etc.
Is getting rid of teachers that aren't "doing their job" a good thing? Absolutely. But how is that determined? Should teachers be held accountable for the scores of a kid that can't read the test? Is it the fault of the teacher that they aren't able to educate a student that refuses to come to class? No. At least that shouldn't be the expectation. But just like our students, there are teachers that quit when things get a little bit harder or change even the slightest bit. Those teachers aren't bad people. They need support, not swift and decisive retaliation. That said, if a superintendent or principal comes along that can actually walk into a classroom, show that their ideas work, and creates a tangible change in student achievement, that should get respect from everyone and that teacher should give it a try. If a teacher refuses to adjust and continues to show no progress, is that grounds for termination? Not if there's been no effort to help that teacher grow outside of telling them they are "doing it wrong."
What about the leadership though? If a principal has no idea how to teach students and isn't able to show the teacher how to implement best practices, should they be able to reprimand teachers for not being able to? Nope. Should principals without the skills to be both and instructional leader and a business leader on the administrative side be hired as principals in the first place? Nope. Should principals be kept at campuses when they are ineffective just for the sake of stability? No, but should they be fired when they haven't been supported or given a chance to show progress? That's also a no.
Firing is serious business because that is a person's livelihood and professional reputation on the line; however, we can all think of someone on our campus that just straight up and down needs to go. That teacher that leaves school half an hour early and leaves their kids unattended because they are just ready to go? Fired. The one that is on their phone all day and just gives their kids a worksheet, no explanation, and gives everyone a zero for talking? Boom fired. That leader that berates everyone, doesn't offer any constructive criticism, doesn't know the kids, doesn't know the staff, and just throws their weight around because they love power and the sound of their own voice? Terminated.
It's ok to expect the best, but you have to model the best. Lead by example, but also be able to support the transition to "exemplar" teacher, student, administrator, etc.
RSS Feed