Taking away teacher tenure has been declared unconstitutional.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/05/16/ ... 100/&ihp=1

kiddbrewer wrote:Taking away teacher tenure has been declared unconstitutional.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/05/16/ ... 100/&ihp=1

The reasoning is going to cause a quick appeal, from WSOC:
"(The Law) violates constitutional rights that protect contracts and prevents governments from taking a person's property."

So baring final wording of decision, Tenure = Personal Property & Ending Tenure = Theft?

This is not over by a long shot.

I agree and I'm certain the State will put up a vigorous fight.

I, myself, am not sure how I feel about his ruling. The teachers who have been consistently above average, need to be rewarded with job security, bonuses, etc. The bad teachers, need to be given support to get them above average or let go if that doesn't work.

Where I differ with the State is how to determine who is worthy of career status and who is not. I'm not totally convinced using student growth is the best way of doing that.

kiddbrewer wrote:Taking away teacher tenure has been declared unconstitutional.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/05/16/ ... 100/&ihp=1

I'm a former school district HR dir. My guiding belief has always been that excellent teachers don't need tenure protection and poor teachers shouldn't be able to hide behind it. My job in state public schools, however, required me to recommend teachers for tenure status to the district board of education. Many excellent teachers and most average teachers were so designated. I tried to work with principals to see that poor teachers got the help they needed to improve during their probationary years. At the end of each year some probationary teachers had not shown reasonable improvement, and were non-reappointed. In other words, their contracts expired and we didn't renew them. Other probationary teachers were on the bubble; and those were the really gut-wrenching decisions. They were almost too good to let go; but not quite up to standard to keep. Then it became a matter of supply and demand. If we thought we had a reasonable chance to recruit a better teacher--then we'd non-reappoint the teacher. On the other hand, in difficult subject areas to find teachers (higher math, physics/chemistry, Latin and other foreign languages, some specialties in programs for exceptional children) then we likely would issue a new contract.

As one might imagine, there's a lot of gray area in these decisions. This little post is a definite oversimplification of the issues involved.

Politicians in Raleigh want superintendents to be able to reach into classrooms and drag perceived bad teachers out the door and hand them a permanent pink slip. The present system works--but it takes courage and time to do proper documentation and to go through all the steps.

appgrouch wrote:

kiddbrewer wrote:Taking away teacher tenure has been declared unconstitutional.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/05/16/ ... 100/&ihp=1

The reasoning is going to cause a quick appeal, from WSOC:
"(The Law) violates constitutional rights that protect contracts and prevents governments from taking a person's property."

So baring final wording of decision, Tenure = Personal Property & Ending Tenure = Theft?

This is not over by a long shot.

I have done no research into this, but the claim that a teacher who already has tenure (or is on tenure track) maintains a property interest in their tenure seems correct on its face . . . unless the state has retained the right to alter the contract/abolish tenure. Property includes much more than land, physical goods, and or even intellectual property. And government can't take away property lightly or without just compensation.

This might provide some background knowledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v._Sindermann

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v._Sindermann

Although I am very pro teacher, I am very anti tenure. No one should be guaranteed a job because they have "been there" for any period of time. That is the problem with unions. Employers should be able to keep the good and get rid of the bad without going through an exhausting process.
ASU66 has a very informative post. A great opportunity to see things from the inside. The last paragraph though was very disturbing. Correct me if I am wrong but it looks to me like we have a fairly significant problem in who we have hired as principals and the people they report to in central offices.

bcoach wrote:Although I am very pro teacher, I am very anti tenure. No one should be guaranteed a job because they have "been there" for any period of time. That is the problem with unions. Employers should be able to keep the good and get rid of the bad without going through an exhausting process.
ASU66 has a very informative post. A great opportunity to see things from the inside. The last paragraph though was very disturbing. Correct me if I am wrong but it looks to me like we have a fairly significant problem in who we have hired as principals and the people they report to in central offices.

I will say this. In my 38 year career, I had the opportunity and good fortune to work with some of the very best visionary leaders in central office posts; and some of the finest and most student oriented principals that could be found anywhere. And I do mean anywhere.

By the same token, put 100 randomly selected central officer staffers in an auditorium; or put 100 randomly selected elementary school/high school principals in an auditorium an you'll have a cross section of society present in both places. Choose some method of psychoanalysis of the two groups and graph the results. I guarantee you a bell curve on both graphs.

Another way to say it is that the good ol' boy/good ol' girl system is not dead by any stretch of the imagination. It's not as prevalent as it once was, but it's still out there.

I've taken teacher dismissal cases before my district Board of Ed before on about ten cases. Eight of the cases were upheld by the Board. In the case we lost, the documentation was not sufficient to support a dismissal. We did transfer the teacher to a position in which a higher level of success might be attained. We had several cases reported to the U.S. Office of Civil Rights. That was fun. Depositions. Hearings. Investigative interviews. In my experience, we were never found to be in violation.

Many dismissal cases never make it to formal hearings. Sometimes the teacher simply resigns and chooses not to file a grievance. In many cases, they are miserable in the classroom and eager to move on to something else.

We also had a few cases to go to court. Most were dismissed by the judge as frivolous suits.

asu66 wrote:

bcoach wrote:Although I am very pro teacher, I am very anti tenure. No one should be guaranteed a job because they have "been there" for any period of time. That is the problem with unions. Employers should be able to keep the good and get rid of the bad without going through an exhausting process.
ASU66 has a very informative post. A great opportunity to see things from the inside. The last paragraph though was very disturbing. Correct me if I am wrong but it looks to me like we have a fairly significant problem in who we have hired as principals and the people they report to in central offices.

I will say this. In my 38 year career, I had the opportunity and good fortune to work with some of the very best visionary leaders in central office posts; and some of the finest and most student oriented principals that could be found anywhere. And I do mean anywhere.

By the same token, put 100 randomly selected central officer staffers in an auditorium; or put 100 randomly selected elementary school/high school principals in an auditorium an you'll have a cross section of society present in both places. Choose some method of psychoanalysis of the two groups and graph the results. I guarantee you a bell curve on both graphs.

Another way to say it is that the good ol' boy/good ol' girl system is not dead by any stretch of the imagination. It's not as prevalent as it once was, but it's still out there.

I've taken teacher dismissal cases before my district Board of Ed before on about ten cases. Eight of the cases were upheld by the Board. In the case we lost, the documentation was not sufficient to support a dismissal. We did transfer the teacher to a position in which a higher level of success might be attained. We had several cases reported to the U.S. Office of Civil Rights. That was fun. Depositions. Hearings. Investigative interviews. In my experience, we were never found to be in violation.

Many dismissal cases never make it to formal hearings. Sometimes the teacher simply resigns and chooses not to file a grievance. In many cases, they are miserable in the classroom and eager to move on to something else.

We also had a few cases to go to court. Most were dismissed by the judge as frivolous suits.

Is there a better way?

This appears key:

"The judge’s decision applies statewide to teachers who already have tenure, but not to those who haven’t yet earned it."

Too, the state is in the process of "bribing" tenured teachers into taking a one time "bonus" to exchange their tenure status into a short contract. Relatively few are taking that but still some are jumping on to that offer. I don't have stats, but have heard from some who are accepting the offer that most are teachers who are nearing the end of their career or are planning to get out anyway. Thus, they basically have nothing to lose especially since the "bonus" is relatively small.

NewApp wrote:This appears key:

"The judge’s decision applies statewide to teachers who already have tenure, but not to those who haven’t yet earned it."

Too, the state is in the process of "bribing" tenured teachers into taking a one time "bonus" to exchange their tenure status into a short contract. Relatively few are taking that but still some are jumping on to that offer. I don't have stats, but have heard from some who are accepting the offer that most are teachers who are nearing the end of their career or are planning to get out anyway. Thus, they basically have nothing to lose especially since the "bonus" is relatively small.

Sadly that's the way these "retirement" bonuses usually work. The people that was going to retire anyway take the bonus and retire and the "company" management claim how much money they saved.

There is a misconception about tenure in NC. First of all it is formally not called "tenure" instead it is called "career status." It does not mean a teacher is guaranteed a job. It simply means a teacher cannot be terminated without a reason. Unless, for example, the job is eliminated such as the course or curriculum is no longer offered (inluding certain vocational courses) or reduction in force (funds eliminated for the particular position.)
Those who say a teacher can not be fired who is a member of a union, don't know the real world. When I was in administration, I personally took part in terminating two tenured, NCAE members. One was the next door neighbor and friend of the School Board Chairman, no less. A third member was reduced from a teacher position to that of a teacher assistant with corresponding reduction in pay.

The problem is that we have too many gutless, incompetent administrators.

NewApp wrote:There is a misconception about tenure in NC. First of all it is formally not called "tenure" instead it is called "career status." It does not mean a teacher is guaranteed a job. It simply means a teacher cannot be terminated without a reason. Unless, for example, the job is eliminated such as the course or curriculum is no longer offered (inluding certain vocational courses) or reduction in force (funds eliminated for the particular position.)
Those who say a teacher can not be fired who is a member of a union, don't know the real world. When I was in administration, I personally took part in terminating two tenured, NCAE members. One was the next door neighbor and friend of the School Board Chairman, no less. A third member was reduced from a teacher position to that of a teacher assistant with corresponding reduction in pay.

The problem is that we have too many gutless, incompetent administrators.

I agree, the easiest way to explain (to someone that doesn't know what it is) is to say that tenure modifies the At-Will employment to a "just cause" employment.

In NC it's little more than than saying it's a permanent position vs a contract.