*
The Irony Of It All
Brad Hollerbach

Anti-Tenure Bill Doesn't Go Far Enough

Posted Friday, March 4, 2011, at 12:00 AM

Comments

View 22 comments or respond
Community discussion is important, and we encourage you to participate as a reader and commenter. Click here to see our Guidelines. We also encourage registered users to let us know if they see something inappropriate on our site. You can do that by clicking "Report Comment" below.
  • Great irony and sarcasm Brad!!! The point here is that you don't need to be bright or knowledgeable to be a state legislator.

    -- Posted by ParkerDaws on Fri, Mar 4, 2011, at 6:29 AM
  • Ho Hum, Brad.

    -- Posted by voyager on Fri, Mar 4, 2011, at 8:44 AM
  • Way too funny ! If it is a ridiculous idea it will probably pass. We seem to do away with everything that makes sense and adopt only stupid ideas. Very effective article, nice job.

    -- Posted by Kdub102002 on Fri, Mar 4, 2011, at 9:41 AM
  • Right on

    -- Posted by Bill Hargis on Fri, Mar 4, 2011, at 9:58 AM
  • Nice! 80% or more of a child's education can probably be traced back to the parents. Teachers are only in contact with the child for five hours or less per week, and that is in a classroom with 20 other students.

    -- Posted by Hotrod11 on Fri, Mar 4, 2011, at 11:34 AM
  • Good idea but does the entire thing have to be written in sarcasm? It's not funny so I'm assuming you're not going for comedy...I'm assuming you are truly against this legislation. Maybe put at least a sentence or two explaining the flaws in it??

    I don't know..just my humble opinion.

    -- Posted by clkv on Fri, Mar 4, 2011, at 1:07 PM
  • My yin to clkv's yang:

    Yes, the entire thing needed to be written sarcastically. While maybe not Monty Python funny, it is more than Cheshire cat funny. And, why put in just two sentences explaining the flaws when you can do it in 15 paragraphs?

    I like you're stuff, Brad. I hope the paper's journalistic and editorial writers are half as good at IT as the IT guy is at writing.

    -- Posted by Just_Wondering1 on Fri, Mar 4, 2011, at 2:30 PM
  • I rarely agree with you, but I do this time. If this legislation passes, I will never again vote Republican. First Bush and his NCLB and now this. Idiots. The whole damned lot of them.

    -- Posted by JaysFan_20 on Fri, Mar 4, 2011, at 9:33 PM
  • Tenure was a stupid idea from the get go. Teachers should not be locked in to a permanant job just based on how long they have worked. That's crazy.

    -- Posted by Make no mistake about it on Sat, Mar 5, 2011, at 7:37 AM
  • How many professions guarentee your job after 5 years of service? Especially in states with Employment-at-Will doctrines.

    Let me see if I understand the humor, only academic "experts" can identify problems in education and offer potential solutions? Got it.

    Tenure is like a big tumor on one's face, doesn't take a medical degree to identify the benefits of its removal.

    -- Posted by coke zero on Sat, Mar 5, 2011, at 10:26 AM
  • I say we reintroduce this bill with the same accountability..... only this time for legislators. Let's see by how much margin that would pass.....! Talk is cheap for those not out in the field where the action is. The economy is not making a passing grade...hold the legislators accountable for that!!!!!!!!!

    -- Posted by ispeak4many on Sat, Mar 5, 2011, at 7:58 PM
  • ispeak, This type of bill is already in effect for state legislators, it is called "TERM LIMITS"!!!!

    No one should continue to have a job just because they have had it for 5 yrs. previously.

    Apparently, some of these bloggers have forgotten what having a tenured Professor in college was like (never showing for class and having a grad asst. teach the class)! Or that 700 yr old high school teacher with no neck, just chins, that was holding on for 2 more years until they were fully vested in the districts retirement plan.

    Tenure is as ridiculous "free" healthcare...

    -- Posted by John in Jackson on Sun, Mar 6, 2011, at 9:47 AM
  • I can agree with doing away with tenure. It's the rest of the bill that will ruin education. Good teachers will be leaving and good prospective teachers will be looking for another profession. Except for abolishing tenure the bill is a disaster waiting to happen. It could have only been thought up by our wonderful education experts, the legislature. Come on Donna let's hear your opinion on this bill.

    -- Posted by wolfwoman on Mon, Mar 7, 2011, at 8:12 AM
  • I can agree with doing away with tenure. It's the rest of the bill that will ruin education. Good teachers will be leaving and good prospective teachers will be looking for another profession. Except for abolishing tenure the bill is a disaster waiting to happen. It could have only been thought up by our wonderful education experts, the legislature. Come on Donna let's hear your opinion on this bill.

    -- Posted by wolfwoman on Mon, Mar 7, 2011, at 8:13 AM
  • I'm not sure about the historic origins of tenure, but I believe it was used as an incentive for people to take low paying teaching jobs and to add a modicum of job security.

    Like fully funded company retirement pension plans, it is a benefit that probably wouldn't exist if you were creating an elementary and secondary educational system today from the ground up.

    However, it does have a purpose at the collegiate level where it protects teachers or researchers if they openly disagree with prevailing public opinion on a given topic. According to Wikipedia, the "intent of tenure (at the collegiate level) is to allow original ideas to be more likely to arise, by giving scholars the intellectual autonomy to investigate the problems and solutions about which they are most passionate, and to report their honest conclusions."

    The problem I have with Mr. Dieckhaus' proposal is that it is going to radically disrupt the lives of tens of thousands of K-12 teachers who were hired knowing this was a benefit, only to be now told that they no longer have it. I think that is wrong.

    If the legislature wishes to cut tenure as a benefit for new hires -- like what just happened for fully funded public pensions -- that's what they should do. However, school districts will have to rethink their pay scales since tenure is a major benefit. Base salaries for new teachers will have to rise dramatically.

    The fact this bill MANDATES drastic salary division amongst the teachers in a school district based primarily on student performance is also highly inequitable. How do you measure the quality of teaching for an art or music or special-ed teacher or a phys-ed? Do you exempt them from this plan? Is that equitable for all the other teachers?

    Is it fair that some teachers are assigned to schools where the children are just not as smart or have less-involved parents or have a higher quantity of disruptive students that hinder learning for all?

    I don't think so. In short, I think this is a poorly conceived bill.

    Thanks for reading.

    -- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Mon, Mar 7, 2011, at 9:43 AM
  • We do have this concept for legislators. It is called "elections". Term limits is a ridiculous concept, especially for the state legislature where you don't need to spend a billion dollars to get elected. The voters speak in every election - if they speak stupidly, then it is their fault. Why would you kick out someone who is doing an excellent job just because they have been in office for a few years? Term limits are in direct opposition to the democratic process.

    -- Posted by ParkerDaws on Mon, Mar 7, 2011, at 12:00 PM
  • To be completely honest, I am torn on this issue. I think we can all agree that we have had a terrible teacher in the past, one who was no doubt tenured, who deserved the ax...so I get that. I'm okay with doing away with tenure.

    I'm even partially okay with having pay based on student performance, because if you are truly a good teacher, wouldn't you be excited to get getting a LONG deserved raise? The poorly performing teachers are going to be the ones who are loudly against it right?

    But, applying the logic of results based pay on any other profession is crazy when you think about it. What if doctors were cut pay when they didn't heal, or politicians fired when the economy turns bad, or companies held responsible when the product you bought breaks.

    That won't happen, because there are MANY more factors that go into it. Just like there are more factors influencing students achievement than the classroom teacher.

    -- Posted by supersemo on Mon, Mar 7, 2011, at 9:56 PM
  • Supersemo, Guess what, manufacturers are held responsible if their product breaks-returns and/lawsuits. Doctors-malpractice. Politians-not re-elected or impeachment.

    Brad, I separate College tenure from k-12 tenure. Your comparison of tenure to vested pension benefit is very accurate, as tenure allows for a very relaxed academic attitude.

    As far as a vested benefit expectation, if tenure is NOT defined in a teacher's annual contract, there is no such legal benefit. ie Two landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases changed tenure in 1972: ie Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 US 564; and (ii) Perry v. Sindermann, 408 US 593

    -- Posted by peacock111 on Tue, Mar 8, 2011, at 7:06 AM
  • Just a point of clarification. Tenure is not a job guarantee; it is merely a guarantee of due process. Prior to tenure, a Missouri teacher works on a year to year contract and termination can occur for absolutely no reason (and legally districts are encouraged to give no reason). Tenure merely means that teachers are provided due process, including probationary periods, prior to termination. Bad teachers are not guaranteed employment.

    -- Posted by MO Teacher on Thu, Mar 10, 2011, at 8:53 AM
  • it all comes down to responsibility.

    so whos responsible for john failing in school.

    not the parents falt ,goodenss knows they're

    working two jobs keeping food on the table and a

    roof over the family's head.

    and it can't be our state rep. your just trying

    to balance the budget. so what if that means larger class sizes and less time for each student.

    teachers have to be at fault. besides ther're an

    easy target. they're not as many of them as are the rest of us tax payers. so they got to be lazy. i mean they get the summer off what else can it be.

    but the truth is i know for a fact that teachers

    are not the problem in education.

    WE ARE.

    we need to be involved with our children with and

    their schoolwork[you only have 1 child to help, the teacher has 20-30 she could use your involvement]. besides teachers don't just work in class. ten hour days are more the norm than not.

    education is not pork that our legislators should cut to try balance the budget. we all know they could and should other progams with far greater results. im just say "n"

    -- Posted by fred richter on Sun, Mar 13, 2011, at 10:44 PM
  • I agree with Fred. If you child is not doing well in school it is probably your fault parent. Parent who hold education dear, have children who excel in school. They take the time to help them with their work, attend school conferences, encourage them to do their best and expect them to show respect for teachers and classmates. Yes they are going to have a lemon every once in a while in their school years. My parents, though uneducated, always supported the teacher. They always believed the teacher. Very few times they were wrong, but a much larger percentage of the time they were right and I was wrong. I tried to follow their example with my own children and they are both sucessful college grads. Few teachers are in the business for the money and easy work. They have a passion for a increasingly difficult job that is disrespected by many.

    -- Posted by wolfwoman on Mon, Mar 14, 2011, at 9:45 AM
  • How is it that people have been given a very wrongheaded opinion of teacher tenure. Teachers without tenure are working on a year-to-year basis. It is as if you had a job for a year and had no idea if you were going to be employed next year. Unlike most jobs where there has to be some action to fire an employee, just not giving them a contract the next year "fires them". Non-tenured teachers are employed by contract a year at a time. It's not as if they "can be fired", thay are effectively fired every year and have NO job security. After they "prove their worth" they receive tenure...it means that they can count on having the same job next year. The foolishness about them "not able to be fired" is horse manure. It's easy to fire a tenured teacher since the reasons for fired them are listed in the tenure process.

    -- Posted by riverdog on Tue, Mar 15, 2011, at 10:37 AM