TENURE TANTRUM by T. Edwin Perry
The Education System in the State of Florida is on the verge of a substantial change relating to the way the TEACHERS are compensated. Senate Bill 6 threatens the established order of the system and, now that it has been passed in both the Florida Senate and the Florida State House of Representatives, it faces the decision of Governor Charlie Crist, who is campaigning for the upcoming Federal Senate Race, on whether to Veto the bill or sign it into law.
Before I get into the specifics of this topic, let me be clear about a couple of things. First, I have the utmost respect for educators, and had actually attended college with the goal of becoming a teacher. Obviously, it didn’t work out that way, but my respect for the work of educators is absolute. Considering the importance of their work, they are woefully underpaid, and clearly under-appreciated.
Secondly, it is clear that the system is broken. Violence is up. School drop-outs are up. High School Graduates are leaving school unprepared to join the workforce, and many are practically guaranteed to find themselves on the rolls of the welfare system, which is continually on the verge of total collapse, requiring more and more intervention in the form of new taxes and “Social Justice” campaigns. The Tax System is used to redistribute money to those who earn low wages, and the failures of the current education system continually swell the ranks of those who qualify for this redistribution year after year. And the Florida school system is heavily focused on College Preparation rather than Vocational Training, relying on the influence of post-secondary education in college to “Fill in the Gaps” between what is taught in public school and what is necessary to succeed in the real world.
So what does Senate Bill 6 seek to change? For those of us in Florida, this bill is controversial because it essentially lays the blame for our schools’ failures on the shoulders of the teachers, which is, in many ways, ONE place where that blame should most definitely lie. After all, teachers ARE responsible to instill in their students the skills necessary to LEARN! Perhaps you’ve heard of the three “R’s” at some point in your life: “Readin’, ‘Ritin’ and ‘Rithmatic.” (That’s “Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic,” or math, for those of you who aren’t familiar with the terms.) And in addition to teaching students HOW to learn, it is also incumbent upon the Teachers to actually teach the students WHAT to learn as well, but I’ll address the WHAT they’re teaching at another time.
The Bill also targets the existing Socialist “Tenure” system of employment, which protects the employment of teachers based upon length of service rather than quality of results. (Yeah, I said that it’s Socialist. Anything that promises more money without demanding more productivity guarantees mediocrity, and that is a Socialist philosophy.) The Bill targets this system by eliminating the Tenure system for new teachers, placing these new teachers on Annual Contracts and tying one-half of their salary gains to the learning gains of their students. Teachers argue that another “Standardized Test” like the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, or FCAT, will distract teachers from the act of teaching, leading teachers to “teach to the test.” Proponents of the Bill, however, argue that if the students actually LEARN the skills to pass their grade level, passing the test should be relatively simple. (I’ve seen the kinds of questions on the FCAT, and they’re pretty simple, even for the high school level.)
Then there’s the issue of the Teachers’ Union, which has negotiated contracts with built-in raises based upon the Tenure System. (Built in raises = Socialism. Get it?) The Unions, which serve more as a political lobbying power (Special Interest, anyone?) rather than to improve the education system, rely on growing memberships to increase their revenues. Needless to say, the Unions oppose the Bill based upon the fact that, without Tenure to protect the Teachers’ jobs, then individuals will choose other career paths, and this argument may be true. Remember, I have already conceded that Teachers are woefully underpaid. (Go back to the second paragraph. I used those exact words.) In lieu of financial compensation, Teachers count on certain benefits, such as Tenure Protection to promote job security and a Pension program that guarantees a certain level of income once fully vested in the program for retirement; however, this bill will necessarily impede those fringe benefits, which do result in an unsustainable cost to support retirees.
It seems like teachers threaten to go on strike every single year to get the raises that their contracts guarantee while simultaneously demanding more money from the state to fund education and hire more teachers. And, don’t get me wrong, I think that EDUCATION is important topic, and certainly worth a substantial investment of both time and money to strengthen, but as the amount of money has increased over the past 30 years, so, too, has the amount of violence in schools, drop-out rates and poorly-educated graduates. Some will argue that the increase in revenue expended hasn’t matched the increase in population. That could be true. Others will argue that the influx of immigrants, particularly in the heavily-populated southern portion of the state, and even more particularly in the less-wealthy segments of the community, are a burden on the teachers and a drain on a school’s resources. That could also be true. But if more money is dumped into the existing Education System, will anything change? How will the increased funding be used to make the system more effective? Nobody seems to have an answer for that.
Meanwhile, private schools regularly have annual teacher contracts, pay more for teacher salaries, and generally hold their students to substantially higher standards for graduation, resulting in a higher level of qualification when the students graduate. And Charter Schools, which are privately operated but publicly subsidized, also tend toward annual teacher contracts, generally face the same issues of public schools, but generally achieve superior results. Granted, both Private and Charter Schools encourage a greater level of involvement from the students and the parents, and generally attract students who are more focused on achievement, while Public Schools are required to accept EVERY student within their school boundaries, regardless of the desire or effort of the student, and regardless of the parental involvement. And, just as I said ONE place to lay the blame for failing students is on the shoulders of the Teachers, ANOTHER place to lay that blame is equally on the shoulders of Parents who fail, for whatever reason, to be involved in the education process, both within the school and at home.
Lastly, Public Schools are encouraged to promote the students through the grades for fear of injuring the self-esteem of students, even when they fail to achieve success in any one grade level, which results in more and more students moving on to more difficult levels without absorbing the skills and knowledge of the previous ones. How can we expect students who are promoted without the necessary skills to “catch up” to those who have them without being a drag on the rest of the students? On the other hand, Private and Charter Schools encourage tutoring, and are able to “hold back” students who do not absorb the necessary information, giving them a greater opportunity to succeed in the subsequent year, and studies have shown conclusively that holding back a student in one year, if done in a way that does not expose them to unnecessary ridicule, can make them better students, give them the opportunity to achieve success, and eventually succeed in life…and isn’t that the point of an Education System?
Passage of Senate Bill 6 is a key to passing two other bills as well that, if passed, will expand public funding for private school vouchers and loosen restrictions on public school class sizes, both of which could result in more productive uses of existing funds and increase the effectiveness of the education system for the students. Republican Governor Charlie Crist is in a tough spot. As a candidate for the upcoming Senate race, he’s rightfully fearful of the powerful Teachers’ Union, who could impede his run for the Senate. (Granted, the Teachers’ Union generally favors the Democrats, but that’s another story.)
So what’s my stance on this bill? Well, I’m not sure. I haven’t read it. I’m generally in favor of the details that I’ve read about, but there may be details I don’t know about. If you, my loyal reader (stop laughing…there could be quite a few of you who just don’t comment…), are aware of other details that would make Senate Bill 6 detrimental, I encourage you to fill me in, but, otherwise, I think Crist should sign it. For him, it would be a win-win situation. It might piss off the Unions, but they don’t like him already. It would, however, give some credence to his claim that he is a “Conservative,” and not the Progressive “Republican in Name Only” that his years as Governor have shown him to be, which might help him with the Republicans and Conservative Independents who are going to choose between him and Marco Rubio.
One simple fact remains: a student who is not inspired to learn will not learn. GOOD teachers are the key to that inspiration, and good teachers, in my opinion, should earn more than teachers who are simply biding their time to retirement (and I certainly had my fair share of THOSE teachers during my public education). The existing Tenure system rewards longevity, not success, and that is invariably detrimental to the student. As such, I support the bill.
Leave a Reply