Frank Belluscio, a spokesman for the school boards association, said the proposed tenure change would be a first for the union but did not see it as a concession."This is the first time they’ve proposed a change in the length of time needed" to be granted tenure, he said.
Frank, you really need to understand something: you can replace ineffective teachers even if they have tenure. If you want to argue it's too hard to do that, OK, we can fix that. But you don't have to eliminate tenure to do so.Belluscio called the residency plan an "interesting concept," but said it "still doesn’t get to the structural change necessary" to allow districts to replace ineffective teachers when necessary."A major compromise (by the union) would be if they agreed to eliminate lifetime tenure," he said.
And let's be clear: if you can take tenure away, you are essentially eliminating it. Remember, if a teacher does not have tenure, they can be fired at any time for absolutely no reason. A mechanism that removes tenure is functionally the same as not having tenure at all. And the only protection tenure provides is that doesn't allow a teacher to be fired without a hearing.
It's really so simple: cap the process. 90 days max, including appeals. Clear standards to define inefficiency. Dedicated adjudicators. Easy - problem solved.
I'm telling you: the first time a good teacher is removed through this process, there is going to be hell to pay. You think the costs of removing a tenured teacher are high? Just wait until some board of education somewhere removes a competent teacher who gets a lawyer willing to work on contingency. That district is going to be paying for years to come.
Don't say I didn't warn you.