Comments on: Tight Budgets, Tough Questions in Schools

By: Mark Schopmeyer

Mark Schopmeyer — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:50:07 +0000

As observers praise the changes in the Kalamazoo system I think it needs to be pointed out that teachers in the system are now, and were in the past, represented by MEA and work under Michigan’s tenure system. Unions and tenure don’t seem to be obstacles to reform in Kalamazoo.

By: Jim Rudolph

Jim Rudolph — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 13:27:17 +0000

If you have the time I highly recommend reading
http://web.tampabay.rr.com/fkittle/Primer.pdf

It is 20 page discourse on education that proposes a vast change to how schools operate.

By: Robert Lafean

Robert Lafean — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 20:18:05 +0000

Both Ms. Rhee and Mr. Griffin make important points. I tend to side with Ms. Rhee, but, in lieu of tenure there has to be an absolute system in place that would provide consistent state wide procedures for dismissal process, including specific avenues of appeal, possibly above the local School Board level.

Mr. Griffin does err in attributing tenure as a way to keep School Boards from being overtaken by special interest groups. The MEA has tremendous operations in place that make it difficult for citizens unsupportive of unions to be elected. Virginia had politically appointed School Boards until the early 90’s when State Law mandated elected Boards. SO there are ways to institute checks and balances.

In the end it still relies on an educated AND interested electorate; and school board elections have some of the lowest turnouts – that is a much more serious problem.

By: Lee Griffin

Lee Griffin — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:51:58 +0000

I disagree that teacher tenure has no benefit for children. The debate often overlooks this key point: teaching positions in public schools are controlled by locally-elected school boards. Tenure is what prevents these positions from becoming political appointments.

If tenure were abolished and local school boards had the authority to fire and replace teachers at will, it would not be long before advocates for various political viewpoints began running for board positions to further their own causes rather than for the general good of education, as most board members do now.

In my years of teaching, I never had to worry about whether my views on politics, abortion, censorship, or the environment, for example, reflected those of school board members. Political views were irrelevant, as long I kept them appropriately out of the classroom. Remove tenure, and it would not be long before activists of various stripes began to compete for board positions in order to reshape the schools by firing teachers of opposing views and hiring teachers according to their narrow interests.

Furthermore, in my years of teaching, I never had to worry if the superintendent’s nephew was newly certified in my area of expertise, or whether the principal belonged to my club or church. Tenure protects public employees from unfair dismissal in the same way that the civil service laws protect other government employees, and it helps schools remain apolitical, a benefit to all children.

I have agreed for many years that tenure has shielded a small minority of teachers who should have been dismissed for incompetence or negligence. The solution, however, is not to eliminate tenure, but rather to improve teacher evaluation tools and processes available to administrators and to revise the rules of tenure hearings so that it is less burdensome for school districts to remove teachers for true incompetence or negligence.

Eliminating tenure is likely to have terribly negative, unintended consequences on the political neutrality of local school districts.