I read some propaganda from Pierre yesterday that laid out one of the cynical arguments we will hear from Governor Daugaard and his minions to defend the end of due process protections for teachers through "continuing contract" rights. Governor Daugaard wants to portray the end of continuing contract as a boost for local control. His package of education reforms frees school districts of state-mandated continuing contract rights; they can now choose whether or not to extend this protection to their employees.
Yes, yes, because basic labor rights should be matters of local choice, not uniform protections for all citizens. State-mandated continuing contract rights are as offensive to local control as that nefarious state-mandated uniform system of public schools for all children.
House Bill 1234 reveals its Republican supporters' conditional fealty to local control. Governor Daugaard and his good soldiers cite local control when it helps their cause; they ignore it when they want to force their agenda on everyone.
If the Governor's people want to pretend devotion to local control, they will lose the argument on HB 1234, which grants this one small bit of local control on personnel matters in exchange for the sacrifice of local control over much larger policy spheres of staff evaluation, testing, and curricular focus.
But let's not be distracted: Team Daugaard also loses on the merits of the policy itself. The Governor forgets why South Dakota and other states implemented continuing contract laws in the first place, to protect teachers from local abuses:
First, the reason that the original laws were passed was to protect good teachers. Revisit history and you will learn that before these protective laws, teachers were frequently dismissed because superintendents or school board members wanted their relatives hired instead. Often times, teachers were dismissed because they shared a different opinion on instruction from that of their principal. Sometimes, petty jealousies, the lack of ability to coach a sports team, or just plain old personality conflicts precipitated dismissals. Does anyone believe that those same circumstances would not return if we eliminated the protections for teachers? [John Wilson, "Tenure Protects Good Teachers," Education Week: John Wilson Unleashed, 2012.03.05]
Local control is not an absolute good. Current state law on continuing contract checks the power of local school officials for the good of students. The Governor's desire to do away with South Dakota teachers' few remaining labor rights only makes it easier for schools to get rid of good teachers for bad reasons.
I don't understand why we have not yet moved towards an automated, video immersion teaching method (by robots), and merely retain some humans to do the basic admin work necessary in any bureaucratic system. Is a human really necessary to teach a child? I propose that all subjects be taught by one teacher over video, which can then be recorded and used for the next couple decades. If I can learn to paint from videos of Bob Ross, than little Jimmy can learn addition from a video too!
This eliminates the need for the principal to do an objective evaluation and recordkeeping. It also assumes that every administrator is absolutely perfect in the performance of their job duties.
With my wife being a teacher and member of SDEA for over 30 years I've seen how schools have tried to get rid of teachers and I'm sure Roy you as well as my dad saw the same thing in Madison. Continuing contracts are the only protection a teacher has from exacting what you said Cory-local abuse.
I bet every teacher has stories where parents loved them and other parents who went after their jobs. Continuing contracts are the only way a teacher has a chance at a fair hearing.
I think what the Governor wants is what the rest of the labor force has to deal with and the The Right to Work (for less) law, with no protections and no unions.
That's just it! The admin folks would just be evaluated on student adherence to school rules, not at all on student educational performance! Admin folks would be an amalgamation of babysitter and prison guard, with the principle as more of a warden role (Maybe we can consolidate state government by combining the dept of education with the dept of corrections, since education is all about correcting students' education anyway!)
Joe, I think I saw a school do a one-act play on your vision of the education system once. Why can't I remember titles when I need them?!
Roy, I'm not sure the principals get off the hook. They have to adopt the all-new state evaluations, process the thrice-yearly student growth tests Daugaard wants... they're going to burn up their time and budgets on all sorts of new record-keeping.
But with continuing contract removed, even if they've done a perfectly objective evaluation, HB 1234 will allow them to kick out good teachers for the purely political reasons Owen mentions. Would any teachers in the room care to share stories?