The last-minute addition to House Bill 2506 to eliminate tenure for K-12 public education teachers was a shock and a huge disappointment. Supporters contend it’s a way to get rid of “bad” teachers. I’m seeing a very different scenario.
I think this is simply about money. Teachers’ salaries are based on base pay, years of experience and level of education. Suppose a teacher signs a contract that doesn’t include due process. She teaches successfully for 10 years. At that point she is making maybe $10,000 more than a beginning teacher. So now, without a reason or review, she is fired and replaced by a less expensive beginner. Consider 10 other teachers in that district in the same boat. Consider 10,000 teachers statewide. This is about dollars.
It defies quality or continuity of education. New teachers are wonderful. They bring new energy and new ideas. The classroom loses experience. If you don’t recognize what that means, put yourself in front of 28 eighth-graders for an hour at a time and expect all of them to reach measurable educational goals.
Why does the bill address only teachers? Why not administrators? What about counselors? Or central office employees, like superintendents? Why not private school teachers? Why not university teachers?
Manhattan High School was recognized nationally as a top school for its rigorous curricula, through which a large percentage of students take advance placement classes. The classes offer college level credit. Are those teachers considered K-12, or are they college teachers with tenure? What about coaches? They could be replaced every time a superintendent’s son doesn’t make the golf team.
Kansas ranks 47th among the states in teachers salaries. Now, they won’t even have due process rights.
Why would any first-year teacher choose to start a career in Kansas?
MAGGIE DAVIE, Manhattan