New School Policy Does Away With Seniority-Only Teacher Placements
Union representatives say any changes need to be negotiated.
In a 6-0 vote Tuesday night, the School Committee approved a new personnel policy that eliminates using senority as the sole criteria for teacher hiring and placement.
Committeewoman Mary Ellen Winter was absent.
School Committee Chair David Green said the action came in an effort to align EGSD policy with the state Department of Education's Basic Education Program, or BEP. The BEP calls for "an effective human capital management system," according to a 2009 letter from Education Commissioner Deborah Gist to superintendents.
In that letter, Gist highlighted the language in the BEP (which was enacted by Gist's predecessor, Peter McWalter) that reads, "each LEA shall maintain control of its ability to recruit, hire, manage, evaluate and assign its personnel." (An LEA is a "local education agency," or school district.)
On Tuesday, committee member Susan Records expressed some reservations about the new policy. In particular, she said she was concerned about how teachers would be prepared for what she called a "drastic change" in the hiring and placement process.
"I’m just looking for how we can keep [teachers] motivated going forward," Records said, whose son, Matt Records, is a teacher in the district. "I don’t see that in the policy. But do we have any supporting policies? And what kind of communications have we made with our current staff on this drastic change?"
Committee member Deidre Gifford responded, noting there had been a panel of administrators and teachers – the Commission on Teaching Excellence – working for 18 months on these issues.
"Our charge was to look at the BEP next to the current contract and call out places where there was language where the two weren’t aligned. One of the recommendations that came out of that process was essentially mirroring the BEP language that said that seniority would be a consideration but not the sole consideration in hiring. So there was that whole 18-month process where there was back and forth [between the administration and the union]," Gifford said.
Among the new criteria to be considered when hiring or placing a teacher are educational background and certification; professional experience; past job performance; interview performance; evidence of effectiveness as measured by student academic growth; and duration and scope of professional experience.
Union co-president Donna Hayes, a library media specialist at Frenchtown School, told the School Committee that setting policy was not the same as collective bargaining.
"Although the Basic Education Program regulation reaffirms that optimal student learning is the main criteria of all school departments, the procedure through which this is achieved, for teacher selection and retention, must be collectively bargained," she said read from a prepared statement. "If any changes need to be negotiated to optimize student learning, they will bargained in good faith at that time."
The teachers' contract expires Aug. 31. Negotiations on a new contract are set to begin in coming weeks.
"The policy does not need to be collectively bargained. The contract needs to be collectively bargained," said School Committee Chairman David Green after the meeting. "We’re simply following that which has the force of law. The BEP – RIDE regulations – have the force of law in Rhode Island. The policy now complies with the statute."
Green continued: "Our process ... is to ensure that our policies are consistent with Rhode Island regulations. We’ve done that tonight.... I think everything we approved in the policy will be reflected in the contract but the policy is the backbone. It’s the standard. And there’s many different ways to get to that standard. That will be the subject of many lively conversations within the negotiation sessions."
Rose
7:58 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
This ridiculous policy leaves good qualified teachers totally unprotected when decisions are based on personality or other subjective perceptions of who is better qualified for what position.Not all principals will make fair decisions and favoritism and nepotism and behind the scenes politics will now have their day. Shameful and the beginning of the end of what is fair and just in the hiring process.
Heather Larkin
8:36 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
The same argument can be made FOR this change. "This ridiculous policy leaves good qualified teachers totally unprotected when decisions are based on seniority".
Paul Hoffman
8:11 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Shame on all of you. Without unions, your kids would still be working in sweatshops, and no building in America would have safety codes (can you say Shirtwaist Factory fire?).
Further, teachers are being scapegoated for society's ills, because looking at family economic stress and a culture that substitutes technological expediency for good old fashioned teaching and pupil studiousness, is too daunting a task.
EG Lurker
9:43 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
At this stage in the game, unions only exist to protect the poor worker, actually harming those that do a good job and desire to exceed.
Let's be honest - for as many good teachers with seniority that exist, there are enough that are jaded and going through the motions, having lost that fire a long time ago. And this is not merely limited to teachers, but all professions. I'd much rather have a hungry, young teacher, with fresh ideas and innovative ways of making learning interesting - teachers who embrace technology & alternative learning methods. Teachers who chose to go into teaching very recently, knowing that the pay throughout their lifetime will most likely stink. Teachers who want to teach for the right reasons.
I have children in the district, and must say that many of the teachers I've seen at Cole fit that mold - young, with limited tenure, but making my children WANT to learn and be excited about going to school.
Leo
8:45 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
You are all just playing the game of ruining collective bargaining that Gist has started. Soon she will be gone and the state will be left with a snake pit of backstabbing and favoritism. There is a valid need for unions to keep things running fairly and safely and you have now opened Pandora's Box. Just who will save the qualified teacher whose job is pitted against someone who is a relative or friend of administration? I guess you all think you are too noble to let those kinds of things happen but history and human nature proves otherwise. A sad day and a backwards step for all.
Rose
8:49 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Heather, if a really unqualified teacher has made it far enough in the system to earn seniority, then the administration is not doing their job.
Heather Larkin
6:21 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
My point is that it's not a logical argument, not to come down on one side or the other.
Alicarn
9:20 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Without seniority, why stay within a school system?
Cecil B DeMille
9:35 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
What a concept. We're actually going to have the teacher who is most qualified for a certain subject or grade teach that class rrather than a teacher who earned a certificate in a subject fifteen years ago but has never taught it but happens to have seniority. Unions were created to make sure that workers are treated fairly. They were not created to thwart excellence and encourage mediocrity.
QuitUrBitchin
10:56 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Under the old system, the gym teacher could apply and be accepted to teach an open position for an Algebra teacher. This type of thing happens all the time. Totally insane that we would allow that. The new rule does not preclude seniority, it simply states you must also be qualified.
Leo
5:31 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Not true! Teachers must have certification to teach at their grade levels and in their subject areas. This type of thing simply does NOT happen, unless you are being brainwashed by Fox News and Tea Party types who somehow believe that teachers are public enemies. And the new rule DOES preclude seniority which is the ONLY fair way to choose between 2 equally qualified teachers. That is why this new policy is so upsetting.
Elizabeth McNamara
5:48 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Leo, I appreciate the clarification on certification requirements. One correction, however: the new policy includes "duration and scope of professional experience" as one of a number of hiring and placement criteria.
Leo
7:23 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
"duration and scope?" Duration sounds like seniority. And scope??? Just who is going to measure that?
Heather Tibbitts
7:30 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Long long ago, there was a student sit-in at EGHS in support of history teacher Jim Etchells. He challenged his students to think for themselves and look at all sides of an argument. He required critical thinking skills and a willingness to "push back." He remains one of the most influential teachers in my educational experience, and yet he was "bumped" from the HS spot to make room for a more senior teacher returning from a 2-year leave (pursing a failed business adventure, if memory serves). While I'm sure the students at the Jr. High enjoyed his dynamic teaching, the HS students lost an influential educator who was able to engage the older students in a way few can. I am glad that placing teachers according to the best interests of the students is now the priority. I applaud this new policy.
B
10:45 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
cost/benefit analysis:
"Costs of Eliminating Tenure:
Increase exponentially the potential for abuse of teachers.
Turn schools into patronage machines.
Discourage good candidates from becoming teachers.
Jam the courts with wrongful dismissal cases.
Potentially fire good teachers for bad reasons.
Benefits of Eliminating Tenure:
Easier to fire small number of teachers who should be fired.
That's it.
Is there a way to get this benefit without eliminating tenure? You bet: streamline the dismissal process. Cap the time for a dismissal and appeals at 90 days. Send the cases to arbitrators who specialize in teacher dismissals. You'll cap costs and make it much easier to dismiss these hypothetical "bad" teachers."
Source: Jersey Jazzman
B
11:46 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
If EG wants to evaluate teachers by the growth of students they might be in violation of Rhode Island law. This can not be part of an effective human capital management system because growth tests are not designed to tell what part of the growth is attributable to the teacher.