The Virginian-Pilot
©
RICHMOND
With backing from Gov. Bob McDonnell and the state's school boards, Del. Richard Bell, R-Staunton, on Thursday evening presented a compromise on the governor's proposal to do away with continuing contracts for teachers, suggesting a three-year rather than an annual contract.
The initial version of Bell's bill would have required school administrators to evaluate teachers' and principals' contracts every year, drawing the ire of education groups, including the Virginia Education Association. He presented a new version to a House education subcommittee Thursday, winning over some opponents, including the Virginia School Boards Association.
The substitute bill replaces open-ended contracts for teachers with three-year contracts and lengthens the probation period for new teachers to five years from three. It also implements annual evaluations of teachers and principals, taking test scores into account, and requires school boards to consider factors other than just seniority during layoffs.
The goal is to rid the system of ineffective teachers, state Superintendent of Public Instruction Patricia Wright said. She called the substitute bill "a fair and reasonable approach."
"I believe this is going to help the teachers grow into their careers," she said, "and on the other hand, if there are teachers or principals who need to grow into another career, we will help them do that."
VEA President Kitty Boitnott said the new version is an improvement, but her association would still prefer the General Assembly leave things alone. She said administrators already have the tools to oust teachers who don't perform, and undercutting job security when teachers already face stagnant pay and other challenges will only scare recruits away.
"There is nothing wrong with the system we have if people use the system the way they're supposed to."
As written, the substitute bill would take effect July 1, 2013, and not affect teachers under existing continuing contracts. However, Deputy Secretary of Education Javaid Siddiqi said the administration wants to convert those contracts to three-year terms and are consulting with Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli on the legality of doing so.
The House Subcommittee on Teachers and Administrative Action discussed the bill for more than an hour but delayed taking a vote until its next meeting Tuesday morning, when the members will hear public comment on the proposal.
Kathy Adams, 804-697-1563, kathy.adams@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
You're Missing the Point...
Last time I checked, people shouldn't be going into education for the job security. Education is supposed to be something that is valued and high-up on the national priority list. Would YOU be satisfied leaving your child in the hands of a person who is in education for job security? Bottom line, we don't need people being enticed into our profession because they think they'll still have a job in five years. You should become a teacher because it's your calling. Along those lines, if you're doing your job, then what exactly do you have to be worried about? Nothing. The people who are against this bill are either truly ignorant of all the idiots that get away with being called "teachers", or IS the idiot that is afraid to be called out.
Bad Teachers
Yes, there are bad teachers in the classrooms. But, the tools are in place to weed them out. If administrators would do their job when they perform observations, then these teachers would be taken care of. Yes, it entails alot of work on the administrators, but the end result would be worth it. If building administrators do not want to do their jobs, then central administration need to get of them. All these changes are coming about because building administrators will not police the ranks of the teaching profession.
Here we go again...
In what other profession is changing a contract after it's been signed legal? Where else are professionals who study for years (& who continue to do so) asked what they know about their OWN profession!? Politicians think this will help students succeed? If it becomes a fight over who gets renewed, you can forget collaboration. Teachers will be scared to share their ideas to others to help improve instruction across the board lest the credit/contract go to another person. All the hard work we've done to form educational teams will go down the drain, and the STUDENTS will ultimately suffer most. But then, what do I know? I'm just a teacher, right? I've only devoted 10+ years of my life to my students. Why should I expect job security?
Where else?
Don't EMTs have to recertify? CPR instructors? Do insurance agents, real estate agents, lawyers, nurses, doctors have to keep up with changing laws/trends/techniques/etc? Hairdressers must keep up with changes...a professional spiral perm trend of the 80s became a straight hair trend. How about IT professionals? Just because you were a total whiz at DOS in the 80s does not mean you automatically know the newer/faster computers of today. Mechanics: do you think that knowledge stays still? If they don't keep up with the trends/changes do you think they get to keep their jobs? They can't expect job security, why should you?
“It is amazing how much you can accomplish when it doesn't matter who gets the credit.”
Recertification vs. Continuing Contract
This debate is not about recertification, but about continuing contract. You are correct that in all of those other professions you listed employees must keep up with current trends and recertify on certain skills. To clarify, teachers are required to recertify as well. Within 5 year increments, teachers must accrue 90 professional development points (from attending workshops, for example) and 90 college credit credit points (from a 3 credit college course). This is recertification. The argument on the table right now is whether or not continuing contracts should be abolished. The two are totally separate issues, but consider this as well: teachers, even those on continuing contract, are still evaluated by their administrators.