Recently, I have read several articles on teacher tenure and whether the state of California should change their process. I personally never paid attention to this topic and always assumed that 2 years was enough and that we would get great teachers after the probation period. As a future administrator I now know that is not always the case. Currently, California is one of ten states in the United States that allows their new teachers to become tenure within 2 years of teaching. So the question I am posing is, Is 2 years to become tenured too short of time?
In a survey by the National Council on Teacher Quality of teachers working in the Los Angeles Unified School District, 68 percent of teachers reported that there were tenured teachers currently working in their schools who should be dismissed for poor performance. Principals are having a hard enough time finding the time to evaluate their teachers effectively, so how can they justify keeping a teacher who hasn’t been able to demonstrate what is needed to be an effective teacher. The answer is the permanent employment law forces administrators to either grant or deny permanent employment to teachers after an evaluation period of less than 18 months. This sometimes is before new teachers even complete their beginner teacher induction programs and before administrators are able to assess whether a teacher will be effective long-term. This definitely makes it difficult to keep an effective teaching staff when an administrator is forced to make a decision on someone they are not sure will have the tools necessary to teach our students.

Our nations average is 3 years to become tenured. According to the National Council on Teacher Quality, administrators report needing at least three years to accurately evaluate a teacher’s effectiveness. So if studies show that principals need more time to effectively evaluate a new teacher, why does the state of California continue with their 2 year tenure process? Making three years the norm for granting permanent status or “tenure,” wouldn’t be a bad thing if its meant to help provide adequate feedback and allow revision and growth of our new teachers. Maybe even allowing probation to be extended to a fourth or fifth year for teachers who show promise, but could benefit from further coaching and training. This would help build strong effective teachers and weed out the ones who realize teaching is just not for them. So is California setting up our new teachers for failure with its tenure procedure?

In 2017, legislation to add a year to the two-year probationary period for California teachers passed the Assembly Education Committee, its first test, after contentious exchanges between the bill’s author, Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, and committee Chairman Patrick O’Donnell, D-Long Beach. According to an article on Edsource.org, “Under the bill, districts could continue to dismiss probationary teachers without having to cite a cause, as they now do. A teacher would need two consecutive positive evaluations to get permanent status; the decision would normally be made after three years.” This bill was prompted by the Vergara v. California court case of May 2012. “The plaintiffs argued that the two-year period for granting teachers tenure is too short in which to ascertain a teacher’s effectiveness.” (edweek.org) Therefore, in order to help build strong teachers and promote success and growth we need to add another year to the probationary period. If not as a state we are failing the next generation of teachers.