Review and Analysis of the Reasons for Teacher Dismissals - Research Paper Example

? Final Exam Educational Leadership Teachers’ dismissal from their work is normally guided and protected by Teachers Tenure Act (TTA). Their dismissal falls under six categories, which are related to conduct, performance, physical or mental capacity, teachers’ license, citizenship and reduction in their work force (School Employment Law, 2002). The statute in the Teacher Tenure Act (TTA) makes it easier for school principals to understand legal principles behind all grounds for dismissal. Inadequate performance Inadequate performance is one of the reasons for teachers’ dismissal related to work performance. According to Teachers Tenure Act (TTA), any tenured teacher may be dismissed due to his or her performance (Clem, Clay & Calhoun, 2006). The school system has the obligation of informing teachers about their performance inadequateness in order to give them opportunities for improvement. Grounds of inadequate performance can be used to support the dismissal of teachers on the objective of evaluations leading to a conclusion of inadequate performance. In addition, this ground also applies to both the control of the student and the teaching method of a teacher. The act reveals that before a teacher is dismissed for inadequate performance, he or she should be allowed to understand what is expected of him or her. This gives teachers adequate information of what performance inadequacies are in order to overcome them (School Employment Law, 2002). Subjective evaluation of inadequate performance in a teacher is evidenced by poor performance of the students and shortcomings of their progress. This is as a result of poor organization of classrooms and failure of the teacher to show applicable initiatives in finding effective means of attaining their objectives. In addition, poor performance can also be as a result of teachers’ inability to maintain good order in classrooms. This fundamental is generally known that teachers cannot teach, and students cannot learn effectively in chaotic and disrupted classrooms. In all these circumstances, dismissal actions are taken by the board of education to dismiss the culprit teacher. This follows the identification of low performance in a school based on inadequate performance of a teacher. In case the board receives two consecutive substantial evidence of poor performance of a teacher through written findings, dismissal is recommended (Clem, Clay & Calhoun, 2006). Neglect of duty According to Teachers Tenure Act, a tenured teacher can be dismissed due to his or her neglect of duty. Prior to dismissing teachers for neglect of duty, they should be given a chance to understand their duties in school. This is because neglect of duty is determined by references of duties that exist. Neglect of duty is mainly identified by failure of a teacher to show up for work without an excuse. In addition, it is also identified by failure of the teacher to control good order and discipline among students. Based on these grounds, a teacher can be dismissed if he or she fails to fulfill responsibilities and duties imposed upon him or her. The board of education should, therefore, have conclusive proof and evidence that the teacher is adequately neglecting his or her duties before recommending their dismissal (School Employment Law, 2002). Insubordination Insubordination, as revealed from Teachers Tenure Act, can also lead to the dismissal of a tenured teacher. Insubordination constitutes use of an inappropriate language, toleration of illegal games in school, and use of inappropriate physical correction to students. Prior to holding teachers responsible for insubordination, they should be allowed to understand rules governing the school. This will allow teachers to rectify their behaviors in schools. Principals should, therefore, have proper evidence that teachers have engaged in misconducts before recommending dismissal. A clear proof of insubordination gives a proper ground of a teacher to be dismissed (Clem, Clay & Calhoun, 2006). Failure to comply with the requirement of school board Failure of teachers to comply with the requirement of the school board is another factor that can lead to their dismissal. This is mainly evidenced by teachers imposing forces that cause bruises to students irrespective of board’s corporal punishment policies governing the school. Board policies are authorized to teachers to use reasonable force while maintaining order and discipline of students. Violation of this policy lays a better ground for dismissal of the teacher. The board members should conduct fact findings through Committee Hearing before recommending for a dismissal. This gives an opportunity to the board to obtain necessary witness and documentary evidence from the students. In case sufficient evidence is collected, dismissal is recommended (Clem, Clay & Calhoun, 2006). There are several types of dismissal that could result in revocation of the teaching certificate: Immorality Immorality of teachers, according to the Teachers Tenure Act, can provide them with dismissal from their work. Immorality, in this case, entails teachers engaging in sexual relationships with their students. In the context of a teacher, immorality dismissal signifies their poor standard and fitness of the service (Clem, Clay & Calhoun, 2006). Other than dismissal, immorality can also lead to revocation of teaching certificate because this conduct demonstrates an inability of the teacher to perform his or her duties and attend to students in the right way. In addition, it also depicts lack of job fitness in which a teacher is expected to be morally upright in order to attend to students in the right manner. According to Teachers Tenure Act, teachers engaging in relationships with their students are unethical. It is, therefore, required that the teachers board to revocation their certificates because they are not fit to serve the minor (School Employment Law, 2002). Excessive use of drugs Habitual and excessive use of the drugs is another factor that can lead to the revocation of teaching certificate. Use of alcohol among teachers has a great impact on the welfare of the students. This is because teachers under control of drugs are incapable of delivering quality education to their students. In addition, excessive use of drugs makes teachers neglect their duties in school leading to poor performance of students. Teachers’ board, therefore, goes for revocation of their teaching certificates because they lack fitness of teaching (Clem, Clay & Calhoun, 2006). School vouchers programs School choice movement has gained momentum over the last decade with discussion arising over enrollment alternatives including district wide choice, tuition tax credits and charter schools. The most controversial alternative, however, and probably the most divisive one has been the use of school vouchers. School vouchers program is publicly funded using state education money provided to families. This money is used by families to pay tuition fees for children attending private schools or religious private schools. Vouchers raise many questions: does the voucher violate the constitution concerning the state and church separation, should they have income stipulations, are the vouchers to be availed to students whose schools are considered as failing and will they help or hurt the public education system and ultimately the students in the end? (“What we know about vouchers”, 1999). In 2002, the Supreme Court heard the case presented against the Cleveland’s School Voucher Program regarding its constitutionality. The program established in 1996 provided vouchers to more than 2000 students from poor families (“What we know about vouchers”, 1999). Through the voucher program, children from low-income households attending underachieving schools in Cleveland would have more educational options. The program, however, was quickly attacked as a possible threat and not a remedy, to the already struggling Cleveland education system. The case gained national interest with parents and education reformers rallying for other states to embrace the program while opponents presented arguments against the program. Pros and cons Proponents of the voucher program argue that parents have the right to decide where their children will go to school regardless of their income at the end of the year. Attending private schools should not be for wealthier students or students with scholarships only. Low-income parents should have the chance to choose private schools over public schools performing poorly. The voucher programs expand options to low-income parents, thus, improving their feelings of inclusion and empowerment within the society (“What we know about vouchers”, 1999). Secondly, parents who choose to send their children to private schools pay for school twice. They pay for the public system through taxes and the private schools in tuition. Through the voucher program, parents will not have to pay taxes to fund the public education system (“What we know about vouchers”, 1999). In addition, school voucher programs will increase competition against public schools prompting them to improve the quality of their education. Through the voucher program, students would flock to the private schools, which are better and abandon the bad public schools. Research has indicated that public schools located next to a private school tend to perform better than public schools further from private schools. Further, vouchers would enable students pursue an education tailored to their needs and interests at a lower cost. They do not have to subscribe to the government’s dictated requirements (“What we know about vouchers”, 1999). Proponents of the voucher program also note that regulations and bureaucracy that constrain the public schools do not burden private schools. Private schools make their own decisions and do not rely on the federal government or the school district for project approval. In addition, because private school curriculum is not determined by funding from the federal government, it means that decision-making process is hastened. Public schools rely on the government and the school district to make decisions before implementing any program (“What we know about vouchers”, 1999). Nevertheless, opponents of the voucher program note that only motivated students will take advantage of the voucher program further leading to segregation along lines of economic status, parent education background and race. Research indicates that parents with at least a college degree are more likely to apply for the voucher program. This is because they are more likely to be aware of the program. According to statistics, these parents are not likely to be from the minority population (“What we know about vouchers”, 1999). This is coupled with the fact that most private schools are known to reject students who do not suit their criteria. The voucher program would, hence, increase the segregation in schools including handicapped children (“What we know about vouchers”, 1999). Secondly, vouchers weaken the public education system. The voucher program diverts funds away from the public system, which are used to pay for tuition in private schools. Lack of funds means quality of education in public schools will drop. Teachers will leave the public system in search of better paying jobs in the private sector. This robs public schools of qualified teachers (“What we know about vouchers”, 1999). Lack of funds will also mean lack of adequate facilities and equipments needed for quality education. This translates to even poorer education for those students not able to access the voucher program. Even with the voucher program, the money provided is not enough to pay tuition for the students. Parents still have to contribute to school payments and most of them cannot afford the balance meaning their children will have to attend public schools. Opponents argue that in the end, the program will deny students a chance for quality education (“What we know about vouchers”, 1999). In addition, voucher program will increase overall cost. The voucher program would mean private schools relying on the already strained public funds. This would mean increased property taxes to fund the education system. Opponents also note that spending public money on religious private schools is a violation of the constitution on separation of state and the church (“What we know about vouchers”, 1999). The future for voucher programs The school voucher program is likely to increase in popularity in the future. Parents want to ensure their children get a better life than they did. One way of doing this is by taking them to schools where they will receive quality education; an education that suits better the needs of the family and interests of the child. Lack of finances for most low-income parents has prevented them from accessing high quality education in private schools. Moreover, religious private schools improve a child’s moral conduct. Many low-income families live in neighborhoods not suitable for children, as it is what they can afford. Religious schools are a good influence for these children. It does not mean the church is infringing on the state, but working in line with state in the hope of bringing up outstanding characters in the job market (Brown, 2006). Contrary to the notion that voucher program will weaken the public school system, the program will only strengthen the public system. Increasing competition means public schools will have to work harder to attract more students. This will, thus, strengthen the public schools, and not weaken them (Brown, 2006). References Brown, K. S. (2006). The future of vouchers as educational reform, political strategy, economic solution, and public policy in the United States. Forum on public policy (p. 12). St.Louis: Forum on public policy. Clem, D., Clay, B., & Calhoun, P. C. (2006, November 16). The Fair Dismissal Act: Ten Mistakes School Systems Make. Retrieved June 29, 2012, from www.brockclay.com/PDF/Article_Fair_Dismissal_Act_11-16-06.pdf School Employment Law. (2002). Grounds for Dismissal under the Teacher Tenure Act. Retrieved June 29, 2012, from www.sog.unc.edu/pubs/electronicversions/pdfs/leps19.pdf What we know about vouchers: the facts behind the rhetoric. (1999). Wested.org. Retrieved June 29, 2012, from: http://www.wested.org/policy/pubs/full_text/pb_ft_voucher.pdf Read More