Here's a novel idea, retaining teachers based on what they achieve, rather than tenure.*****************************************************
House Bill 2011, signed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Sept. 4, takes effect Tuesday. The law changes many parts of the way teachers contract with school districts. According to the new law:
• A district is prohibited from adopting policies that use seniority or tenure as a factor for determining retention. Districts may not use seniority as a criterion when selecting teachers for reductions in force.
• In the case of a recall after a reduction in force, districts no longer have to give preferred rights of rehire based on dates of original employment. More-senior employees will no longer receive preferred rights of return during rehiring.
• The requirement that a general salary reduction must be applied equitably among all tenured teachers before reducing a tenured teacher's salary has been removed. The effect of this is that administrators can lower salaries of individual employees.
• The number of days required for correction after an inadequate teacher is placed on an improvement plan is reduced from 85 instructional days to 60.
• Teachers may not be compensated for conducting union business on contracted time.
• Districts are no longer required to notify teachers by April 15 about whether they'll be offered a contract for the upcoming school year.
• School districts no longer have to issue teacher contracts between March 15 and May 15, meaning they can issue contracts at any time.
House Bill 2011, signed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Sept. 4, takes effect Tuesday. The law changes many parts of the way teachers contract with school districts. According to the new law:
• A district is prohibited from adopting policies that use seniority or tenure as a factor for determining retention. Districts may not use seniority as a criterion when selecting teachers for reductions in force.
• In the case of a recall after a reduction in force, districts no longer have to give preferred rights of rehire based on dates of original employment. More-senior employees will no longer receive preferred rights of return during rehiring.
• The requirement that a general salary reduction must be applied equitably among all tenured teachers before reducing a tenured teacher's salary has been removed. The effect of this is that administrators can lower salaries of individual employees.
• The number of days required for correction after an inadequate teacher is placed on an improvement plan is reduced from 85 instructional days to 60.
• Teachers may not be compensated for conducting union business on contracted time.
• Districts are no longer required to notify teachers by April 15 about whether they'll be offered a contract for the upcoming school year.
• School districts no longer have to issue teacher contracts between March 15 and May 15, meaning they can issue contracts at any time.
3 comments:
Interesting post.
Arizona legislation sounds like it is headed in the right direction but . . . I think even further alteration of the employment relationship between a school and its' teachers is needed.
Absent union affiliation, why is a teacher employed through a "contract"? Professional employees in a business setting are typically not hired via a contract unless they hold highly compensated executive positions. In Illinois, exempt employees are "at will" employees. Either party may sever the employment relationship at any time. Why are teachers afforded any greater protection (specified period for remediation) than any other group of employees? Federal and state employment laws are all that most employees can rely on for protection against wrongful termination, discrimination, etc. What makes educators such a unique group entitling them to greater job protection then the rest of the population?
OK--I'll bite. Right now the public school, in general (District 150, in particular)draws good teachers into "less than perfect" situations probably because of the protection, the salaries, and the benefits. If the playing field is evened with private schools and other districts when all the protection and benefits are gone--then what? How many dedicated teachers will want to teach in schools with discipline problems, low literacy--and be blamed for all the problems to boot? (Teachers can be dedicated and still teach in ideal situations). There would be little reason for teachers not to follow the students out of the district and/or to private and charter schools, etc., where there will be a demand for more teachers--there already is with the suburbs growing by leaps and bounds. Make no mistake, the inner city kids will be left to languish in the public schools--and will not be invited into the private schools or suburbs. Neither will minority teachers and administrators. We will definitely have an education system of the haves and the have-nots (and it will probably be a segregated system--we're already well on our way there). Education cannot be compared to private sector business. Educators--like firemen and police--cannot "go out of business;" our society demands these public service jobs. However, the services can be minimal when conditions are such that qualified people (and taxpayer money) choose to go elsewhere for employment. Public education will not be a choice--just a necessity for those without the financial means to go elsewhere. Maybe we're already there--because many teachers (some whose husbands are the primary bread-winners) have already opted for teaching jobs with pleasant conditions but fewer financial benefits and no protection. I just hate to see the public school destroyed--and I believe if "your dream" comes true, it will be destroyed. Do you really believe that the union is to blame for the problems in District 150? Do you really believe that all those who have left 150 and Peoria left because of bad teachers? The district has no money because of all the businesses and property owners who have left--there is no tax base (and is that the faullt of the teachers' union?) PS--I just spent a wonderful day at Whittier (Grandparents'Day)--still one of 150's bright spots!
I think it's interesting that it took a state law to achieve this - left to their own, individual school districts seemingly weren't able to do this - understandably so. I don't blame teachers for wanting tenure - who wouldn't? But the program has more negative consequences than positive ones, IMO. Since it's so prevalent, it would be hard for a district that essentially bans tenure to compete with other districts, so while many administrations would like to take it away, it's a high risk solution - unless the playing field is leveled by the state legislature. I could be wrong, but in Illinois I doubt there are any non-charter schools/districts that do not still have tenure - maybe that's different in Arizona, but I like that the government stepped in to do what they perceived to be right for the greater good.
Post a Comment