By AMY RILEY
One Citizen's Perspective

One of the most debated proposals in Gov. Roy Barnes's A-Plus Education Reform Act of 2000 involves teacher tenure. Despite the fact that there are many compelling ideas presented, and some alarming ones, Barnes's call for an end to teacher tenure has received the most coverage and created the strangest alliances as political players seek to weigh in on the issue.

Most people view teacher tenure as guaranteed employment following a period of satisfactory performance in the classroom. Opponents tend to think of tenure as job security regardless of performance. Teachers know that what tenure really means is the right to a fair hearing, or due process, prior to dismissal from one's job.

The relevant Georgia codes, 20-2-211, 20-2-940 and 20-2-942 through 20-2-947, often referred to as the Fair Dismissal Act, dictate the circumstances in which a tenured teacher may be fired with just cause and the procedures that must be followed to bring about the separation.

After three consecutive years of satisfactory employment with the same local board of education, and upon signing a renewal contract for a fourth year, a teacher earns the right to not be demoted or terminated without just cause. Tenured teachers can be fired for a variety of infractions listed as “grounds for termination” in the code section 20-2-940, such as willful neglect of duties, incompetency, insubordination, or staff reductions due to a drop in student enrollment or elimination of programs.

Non-tenured teachers may be dismissed at any time after the initial contract with no cause or explanation.

Is it more difficult to fire a teacher with tenure?

Yes, in terms of the cost and time.

In the long term though, Georgians may find that an individual due process hearing is far less complicated and expensive than utilizing the judicial system to air grievances over wrongful termination, which will be the only remedy left to teachers who feel that they have been unfairly dismissed.

Judy Byrd, director of human resources in the Fayette County school system, believes that “Georgia will see teachers more open to protection from teacher unions [through] collective bargaining.”

Many Georgians may find it surprising that Georgia is a “right to work” state and that participation in educator associations, like the Georgia Association of Educators (GAE), is strictly voluntary. There is no collective bargaining of teacher contracts by big unions here, yet.

As for Fayette stats, Mrs. Byrd reports that in the four years since relevant data have been collected, three tenured teachers have been fired. Eleven non-tenured teachers have been separated from employment, with an additional average of seven resignations each year when non-tenured teachers are faced with the prospect of non-renewal. Mrs. Byrd says she is “skeptical that, in the long run, abolishment of tenure will improve education.”

Organizations like GAE and our local affiliate, the Fayette County Association of Educators (FCAE), maintain that teachers will be employed at the subjective will of administrators. George Davis, FCAE president and a teacher at Booth Middle, fears that loss of tenure will produce a working environment in which “you are `safe' as long as they `like' you.”

Davis, who views teaching as “both a science and an art,” believes the loss of job security will hinder creativity and risk-taking in the classroom. He rebukes the notion that education is a “cookie-cutter process.” Davis says that “teaching means making a connection between each individual student and the teacher during every class in every day.”

Many parent opponents of tenure argue that they are weary of innovations in teaching which have failed. Many parents believe Barnes's HB 1187 to be a step in the right direction. Yet, what if there were teachers who agreed with those parents, but because disavowing an educational product or methodology would entail an unforeseen expense, they were fired rather than heard?

Some in the corporate work force view tenured security to be a vast departure from what they would see in terms of their own jobs, and believe that teachers should have to answer to the same standards.

What are other opponents of tenure saying? Ask Gov. Barnes. He says that he's tired of excuses for why Georgians rank near the bottom nationally in student performance on standardized tests. He said in his state of the state address last week that “good teachers don't need tenure, and bad teachers don't deserve it.”

Barnes blasted political pundits for “spreading myths” about what his education reform package will mean for Georgians. He has weighed in heavily against anyone who remains reticent about his sweeping plan.

Many parents, educators and legislators, though, are tired of Barnes's rhetoric that to take a stand against this bill means you are taking a stand against improving education for Georgia's children.

Frankly, I'm tired of Barnes and his power grabbing, solely appointed authorities and agencies which seem to strip-mine the very soil under our local feet. While he may be well-intentioned in trying to rid Georgia's classrooms of teaching mediocrity, he may be ridding Georgian classrooms of teachers altogether.

His claim to pay for quality in teaching is mostly lip service. He will spend far more for his newly formed Office of Educational Accountability in the long run, should HB 1187 pass, for another bureaucratic monolith we do not need, and one, incidentally, that is accountable to no one but the governor himself.

Without tenure, and all pay incentives being tied to standardized test performance, I don't see how underperforming schools are going to find willing teachers.

Even in teaching environments where children come to school ready to learn, “a majority of new teachers leave the profession by year five of their career due to dissatisfaction and the inability to make an impact,” according to George Davis.

And where's the red herring in all of this? Linda Schrenko, state school superintendent and a long-time opponent of tenure and status quo education, has sided with teachers in urging a rewrite of HB 1187.

Despite the lashing from fellow Republicans for what many view as political suicide, Schrenko is aligning herself with the only group with enough political power to put the brakes on Barnes's runaway train.

Personally, any time a big government initiative, some “all saving or all is lost” sweeping reform, makes for such strange bedfellows (like the World Trade Organization convention in Seattle before Christmas and Linda Schrenko and tenure proponents now), I have to line up on the side of skepticism.

I believe that far greater improvement can be achieved by the elimination of teachers who teach out of their fields of expertise and a rigorous program of national board certification.

I am loathe to say that I favor a due process which might harbor someone who is incompetent in the classroom, but I am more loathe to favor the elimination of due process.

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page