"Cleaning House" - an Effective Staffing Model?

Coming into the Baltimore City school system, I heard quite a bit of buzz about the various processes that schools could go through in terms of meeting "school improvement" requirements. In fact, I heard that the school that I was hired to work at (sight unseen, I might add), was told to either "zero base" or undergo some sort of principal replacement. Now, I can't speak to the extent that these rumors are true, but I think that it brings up an interesting point about "zero basing" and the merits (or lack thereof) that this policy entails (neither option happened, by the way - the staff remained, as did the principal... though she would quit two weeks prior to the start of the school year).



Approximately two years later, I find myself assisting with the interviewing process for new staff members for the upcoming school year. However, in order for this to occur, my principal has "asked" a (large) handful of teachers not to return. These teachers, for reasons mostly pertaining to rigor of instruction, adhering to the school vision, and compliance with accountability pieces, have not "met the expectations" of the school's administration (with which, I happen to whole heartedly agree). In my eyes, taking such a step in not renewing these teachers is essential to pushing our school forward and making it the educational institution that we all would like it to be. Needless to say, "the union" is ENRAGED (or so seems to be the gossip-driven perception). Should they be? Perhaps. Is it their "role" to support teachers in their outrage - but is it the best course of action for the school? I'd argue not...



I fully support the idea that you should "cut the fat" at schools where teachers are not performing. However, I also get the sense that there is this incredible red-tape-forcefield (reinforced by the intimidating effect of unions), which prevents this from happening effectively. On the other hand, I see this idea of "zero basing" schools as being something that my principal is doing now - but on a larger scale. Except that with "zero basing," you are losing ALL of the teachers, instead of just getting rid of the unsatisfactory ones. Sure, you can apply to get your job back at your failing school - but how appealing is that option? I'd certainly stay with my school for another year, knowing that the "unsatisfactory" staff contingency is being "let go" - but I'd have serious reservations of having to "prove myself" to an outside individual/group... it'd almost be easier to go elsewhere and start fresh, instead of returning to an uncertain situation.



I understand the potential for abuse with hiring and firing, but I also have incredible reservations about protecting teachers at all costs. If your principal is trying to get you fired from your school - it's probably not the best fit for you, anyway. And if you're a quality instructor, then it shouldn't be an issue for you to find a job elsewhere, with an administration that is more aligned with your style and needs. I also understand the fact that the purpose (in theory) of unions is to protect the rights of workers (in this case, teachers). But at what point does going through this process become more about proving a point and "sticking it to the man," as opposed to actually looking out for the best interest of our students? I fear that, more often than not, we land on the former side, when we should be landing on the latter.