I'm not asking a question, but making a statement. Where are you, UFT and NYSUT?
Betsy Combier
Guilford school board will fight plan to end tenure
Contact Marquita Brown at (336) 373-7002, and follow @mbrownk12 on Twitter.
GREENSBORO — The Guilford County Board of Education is pushing back against legal requirements to offer four-year contracts and bonuses to teachers in exchange for surrendering their tenure.
Under that law, district leaders would have to pick 25 percent of eligible licensed employees, those with at least three years of experience, to receive the contracts. The employees would have until June 30 to accept.Board members likely will vote on Feb. 11 to not follow the law regarding tenure and adopt a resolution to that effect.
They initially voted Saturday to do just that but tabled the vote until the next meeting to give all members a chance for input.
Five of the 11 board members were absent Saturday.
Teachers, who attended the meeting wearing red in support of public education, applauded the move.
“It definitely exceeds our expectations,” said Jen Worrells, a media specialist at Grimsley High.
It’s not yet clear what penalties Guilford County might face for not following the law.
“I don’t know what will happen,” school board attorney Jill Wilson said. “But I bet we’ll see.”
It’s also unclear if any other North Carolina school district has taken a similar step.
Most districts have not yet dealt with the issue, Wilson said.
 |
| Rodney Ellis, NCAE President |
 |
| Mark Jewell, NCAE Vice President |
The state is phasing out tenure with the goal of eliminating it for all teachers by 2018-19.
Until then, teachers who accept the new contracts and give up their tenure would receive bonuses that could reach up to $5,000 over a four-year period. The other vested teachers, who now have multiyear contracts, would instead work under one-year contracts.
School officials said there are numerous concerns about the law, including insufficient funding.
Wilson said that retroactively rescinding tenure from vested teachers is a violation of property rights protected by the state and U.S. constitutions.
For vested teachers, tenure protects more than their jobs, preventing them from being fired for reasons other than those outlined in law, Wilson said. The protections also apply to their salaries, which can’t be lowered without due process, she said.
Board members said they fear the law will cripple the district’s recruitment efforts and further injure employee morale.
State lawmakers are taking teachers and “making them more a pawn in the big scheme of things than should be allowed,” board member Linda Welborn said.
Board member Jeff Belton apologized to teachers, calling legislators’ actions “demoralizing, dismissive and unappreciative.”
Board member Darlene Garrett told the group to “do what the Greensboro Four did. Stand up.”
Demonstrating “that solidarity publicly, supporting teachers, decrying anti-teacher legislation, I think is truly awesome,” Grimsley teacher Cari Reeves said. “The way awesome is meant to be used.”
GREENSBORO — Guilford County school board members are pushing back against a law that would require offering four-year contracts and $500 bonuses to teachers in exchange for their tenure. The group initially voted today to reject that part of the law. After some discussion, the board tabled the vote until the Feb. 11 meeting, when all board members should be present.
Board members will take up resolutions officially rejecting the law, also at the Feb. 11 meeting.
The board is meeting today for a winter retreat. Board members Deena Hayes, Carlvena Foster, Sandra Alexander, Rebecca Buffington and Ed Price were absent.
Under a law that goes into effect this year, school districts across the state would have to identify 25 percent of teachers — those who have at least three consecutive years of experience — and offer them four-year contracts and annual $500 bonuses if they surrender their tenure.
But, as officials pointed out today, there are numerous concerns about the law including insufficient funding.
They’re also concerned that retroactively rescinding tenure from vested teachers is a violation of property rights protected by the state and U.S. constitutions.
Tenure protects more than the jobs of vested teachers, preventing them from being fired for reasons other than those outlined in law, board attorney Jill Wilson said. The protections also apply to their salaries, she said.
With those protections, “your salary cannot be lowered absent due process,” Wilson said.
With the changes in the law, “each contract would stand on its own,” Wilson said. Lawmakers could then come back and change other provisions affecting teacher pay.
Board members said they fear the law will cripple the district’s recruitment efforts and further injure employee morale.
State lawmakers are taking teachers and “making them more a pawn in the big scheme of things than should be allowed,” board member Linda Welborn said.
“If we want qualified teachers, we need to make sure we are doing something to encourage qualified teachers to come in here,” she said.
“Teachers and strong administrators are the foundations of our schools.”
Teachers gathered in the audience, wearing red — a color educators have chosen to show support for public education — frequently nodded and waved their hands in agreement to board members’ comments.
The group initially voted 5-1 to reject the law today.
Vice Chairman Amos Quick, explaining his vote against the motion, cautioned the board not to act out of emotion. He noted five board members are absent.
“Certainly in spirit, I’m all in,” Quick said.
After the board voted 5-1 - with Darlene Garrett voting nay - to table the motion, Quick said he was putting his activist hat on.
He asked for “every teacher or person who cares about education” to come to the Feb. 11 meeting.
“If red is our color, that’s the color I’m going to have on.”
Chairman Alan Duncan said he was not acting out of emotion.
“I have thought about this a lot for a long time,” he said.
Duncan said he can vote today or tomorrow.
“I can vote the next day, but I am where I am on this,” he said, adding again that the law is unconstitutional.
No comments:
Post a Comment