The latest issue of Time magazine is tackling the issue that is happening in the Silicon Valley where a group is trying to eliminate tenure for teachers. The Time article inside the magazine does a good job of showing both sides of the argument but the cover comes off very one-sided. Many teachers are taking offense to the image of an apple being smashed and the words "It's nearly impossible to fire a bad teacher".
The debate is very real and each side is passionate about their stance. One side feels that tenure gives teachers job protection. It gives a profession that earns less than adequate pay some stability and protection. Others feel that by awarding tenure we are making it harder to fire teachers who are just not good.
I have always been torn on the topic. I understand that good teachers deserves tenure, but I am not really clear on how tenure is awarded. Is it earned based on work or just on time spent in the position. There are great teachers out there who deserve the protection that tenure provides. There are also teachers out there who are just not good teachers and do not deserve tenure And there are some teachers who start off great, get tenure and then allow the idea of tenure to let them slack and become bad teachers.
There are so many different ways things can play out that I feel that there has to be some kind of middle ground. A way that good teachers can be rewarded with the protection and anything else that tenure provides them, while school districts are able to discipline or remove teachers who are doing an awful job and putting children's' academic futures at risk.
This is a very heated debate. We want to hear your opinion!
Leave us a comment.