6 point plan to attract and retain teachers

[Glenn's take]

Funny, the far and away number one reason I would never even consider being a teacher isn't addressed. As long as they allow students to act the way they do they will never attract many people.

Coalition of Kentucky educators present lawmakers with plan to reduce teacher shortage

Salary increases are at the top of the list.

www.wdrb.com

 

[Creed Bratton]

What 6 points?

 

[Kaizer Sosay]

No wonder they can’t find/retain good teachers. Their plan to do so contains zero points.

 

[catlanta33]

The 5th point is what I take issue with.

 

[WildcatfaninOhio]

No wonder they can’t find/retain good teachers. Their plan to do so contains zero points.

Good point.

Unlike the first six points.

 

[Lamar Card]

I read the 6 and can sum it up in 2.
1. Lower standards.
2. Increase compensation.

The rest was word salad.

 

[Lamar Card]

Funny, the far and away number one reason I would never even consider being a teacher isn't addressed. As long as they allow students to act the way they do they will never attract many people.

Absolutely ignore the elephant in the school room and on the school bus.

 

[vhcat70]

Give vouchers to the parents & let them decide who will teach their kids where and how. Get the state the hell out of the way. Will have plenty of them.

 

[Kooky Kats]

Your toes are still tappin, Rat

 

[Ron Mehico]

Honestly I think they should offer summers off, minimal if not completely eliminate late evening and weekend shifts, good benefits, random holidays and days off for snow and the like, and try and develop an incredibly powerful union that advocates for them and protects them. Basically offer them lots of things that few if any other professions offer. Would think it would make it far more attractive if they did that!

 

[Sawnee Cat]

Give vouchers to the parents & let them decide who will teach their kids where and how. Get the state the hell out of the way. Will have plenty of them.

Excellent idea that has worked in other states. It is very beneficial for minorities.

 

[rick64]

Until teachers are allowed to maintain discipline by having the support of principals and their union, this will continue to be a problem. But I guess if the money is high enough folks will get onboard.

 

[WildcatfaninOhio]

Give vouchers to the parents & let them decide who will teach their kids where and how. Get the state the hell out of the way. Will have plenty of them.

Uhhh, no!

 

[KYExtemper]

I think this plan is mostly full of hot air and isn't addressing what teachers are really concerned about. Obviously pay is an issue as when you look at a year-to-year comparison teachers in the state are making 15-20% less in terms of buying power their salaries were decades ago. However, issues of workload and issues of discipline in schools are nowhere in this plan.

A critical issue with teachers is lots of them get trained but close to 50% of them are quitting within 5 years of taking their first job. Retention is the issue but it's something no one wants to address. Now that shortages are becoming widespread, there's a race to the bottom in terms of qualifications. Emergency hire programs are not going to create a good, long-term teacher workforce.

All this plan is trying to do is get bodies into a room. Nothing more than that.

 

[vhcat70]

Uhhh, no!

Just why "no"? They system we have now is irrepairable & failing.

 

[WildcatfaninOhio]

Just why "no"? They system we have now is irrepairable & failing.

Because tax dollars should not be used to support religious schools. And that’s what would happen.

 

[entropy13]

Just rehire all the hot, female teachers who got in trouble for boinking their students. They're already trained and will improve overall morale in school.

 

[1Wink]

“I got this 6 point plan”

 

[JumperJack]

Pay much more, eliminate lifetime tenure, and get kids who hate school into an alternate track as soon as possible.

 

[KYExtemper]

Pay much more, eliminate lifetime tenure, and get kids who hate school into an alternate track as soon as possible.

I get why people want to eliminate tenure but the problem with eliminating it is what protection do long-term teachers have if a district goes into cost cutting mode and just wants to slash people who are on the top of the pay scale? I understand the need to keep incentivizing people to do the job and stay motivated, but there also need to be protections for people who get near the closing years of their careers.

 

[JumperJack]

I get why people want to eliminate tenure but the problem with eliminating it is what protection do long-term teachers have if a district goes into cost cutting mode and just wants to slash people who are on the top of the pay scale? I understand the need to keep incentivizing people to do the job and stay motivated, but there also need to be protections for people who get near the closing years of their careers.

Maybe 5 year contracts. I would think that if a teacher is good enough to keep getting renewed every 5 years they’re worth their money and then some.

 

[Ron Mehico]

I get why people want to eliminate tenure but the problem with eliminating it is what protection do long-term teachers have if a district goes into cost cutting mode and just wants to slash people who are on the top of the pay scale? I understand the need to keep incentivizing people to do the job and stay motivated, but there also need to be protections for people who get near the closing years of their careers.

I think creating a make believe hypothetical: “They’ll fire all the good teachers!!” to implement a wide sweeping policy with actual real world negative consequences is not a good way to run a system. Has a district ever gone into “cost cutting mode” and then proposed to fire all the experienced teachers? That doesn’t even really make sense, just sounds like a make believe scare tactic used to pass tenure.

 

[KYExtemper]

Maybe 5 year contracts. I would think that if a teacher is good enough to keep getting renewed every 5 years they’re worth their money and then some.

I mean, maybe but that still doesn't solve the issue I've brought up. What if you get 2 years from retirement and your last 5 year contract isn't offered/made because of a change in leadership/admin or there's different economic circumstances? Good luck getting rehired in another place when it'll cost a lot more to hire you than someone new.

 

[KYExtemper]

I think creating a make believe hypothetical: “They’ll fire all the good teachers!!” to implement a wide sweeping policy with actual real world negative consequences is not a good way to run a system. Has a district ever gone into “cost cutting mode” and then proposed to fire all the experienced teachers? That doesn’t even really make sense, just sounds like a make believe scare tactic used to pass tenure.

There's not a lot of examples because nearly all states have some form of tenure. And I'm not saying they'd fire all experienced teachers but there'd be zero protection for teachers that get near the upper income level or close to retirement. And yes, districts do go into "cost cutting" mode if they face an economic downturn like what we saw in 2008 with the recession. Keep in mind that 80%+ of districts budgets are made up of employees/benefits as is. If a district ever wanted to find cost savings, they'd go into personnel.

If all teachers didn't have tenure, then all contracts would be "at will" each year so a district could just decide at the end of any given year to just "go in a different direction" and you are out of employment. Run afoul of the wrong person or family? Out of a job. This is what non-tenured teachers have to sweat out every year.

The lack of job security would strike me as another negative about entering teaching than a reason to enter it.

Edit: I'd also add that just because you have tenure teaching doesn't guarantee you a job for life. You can still be removed and put on a corrective action plan and dismissed. The only difference is that with tenure you have greater due process rights than non-tenured teachers who can just be dismissed without cause at the end of a yearly contract.

 

[Ron Mehico]

There's not a lot of examples because nearly all states have some form of tenure. And I'm not saying they'd fire all experienced teachers but there'd be zero protection for teachers that get near the upper income level or close to retirement. And yes, districts do go into "cost cutting" mode if they face an economic downturn like what we saw in 2008 with the recession. Keep in mind that 80%+ of districts budgets are made up of employees/benefits as is. If a district ever wanted to find cost savings, they'd go into personnel.

If all teachers didn't have tenure, then all contracts would be "at will" each year so a district could just decide at the end of any given year to just "go in a different direction" and you are out of employment. Run afoul of the wrong person or family? Out of a job. This is what non-tenured teachers have to sweat out every year.

The lack of job security would strike me as another negative about entering teaching than a reason to enter it.

Edit: I'd also add that just because you have tenure teaching doesn't guarantee you a job for life. You can still be removed and put on a corrective action plan and dismissed. The only difference is that with tenure you have greater due process rights than non-tenured teachers who can just be dismissed without cause at the end of a yearly contract.

There’s not really a way to debate your point, you’re proposing a hypothetical worst case scenario “experienced teachers near retirement will be fired with budget cuts” and making me argue against it. That’s not possible. That’s a worst case scenario that nobody would want, including taxpayers. There is no proof that will happen, has happened, or should happen. You’re just setting me up for failure trying to argue against this worst case scary scenario that has no basis in actually happening or examples that it did happen. And of course it would be a negative to incoming teachers to eliminate it. It’s one of multiple great benefits teachers are privileged to that others don’t have.

 

[vhcat70]

Because tax dollars should not be used to support religious schools. And that’s what would happen.

Why do you care what type school it is if the school's kids succeed? CRT & wokeness are religions too.

 

[KYExtemper]

There’s not really a way to debate your point, you’re proposing a hypothetical worst case scenario “experienced teachers near retirement will be fired with budget cuts” and making me argue against it. That’s not possible. That’s a worst case scenario that nobody would want, including taxpayers. There is no proof that will happen, has happened, or should happen. You’re just setting me up for failure trying to argue against this worst case scary scenario that has no basis in actually happening or examples that it did happen. And of course it would be a negative to incoming teachers to eliminate it. It’s one of multiple great benefits teachers are privileged to that others don’t have.

And why do they have it? To try to get people to enter the profession. Take it away and why would people be willing to accept lower pay to enter the field? You've just taken away a benefit.

I'm bringing up a hypothetical because when you are considering policies like this those things need to be considered and not easily dismissed. That's how bad public policy is made.

 

[JumperJack]

I mean, maybe but that still doesn't solve the issue I've brought up. What if you get 2 years from retirement and your last 5 year contract isn't offered/made because of a change in leadership/admin or there's different economic circumstances? Good luck getting rehired in another place when it'll cost a lot more to hire you than someone new.

Maybe some kind of safe harbor. Can’t be let go within X years of retirement. I just know something needs to change.

 

[Ron Mehico]

And why do they have it? To try to get people to enter the profession. Take it away and why would people be willing to accept lower pay to enter the field? You've just taken away a benefit.

I'm bringing up a hypothetical because when you are considering policies like this those things need to be considered and not easily dismissed. That's how bad public policy is made.

You said you understand why people are against tenure, but then you said the reason for it is your hypothetical made up worst case scenario. How can anyone argue against that? Other than not being as attractive for new hires what are the benefits of tenure? Is it better for the kids?

 

[KYExtemper]

You said you understand why people are against tenure, but then you said the reason for it is your hypothetical made up worst case scenario. How can anyone argue against that? Other than not being as attractive for new hires what are the benefits of tenure? Is it better for the kids?

The benefits is that it gives due process rights to experienced educators who cannot just simply be fired at will. I think the greatest benefit to students is that it provides an incentive for teachers to stay at their current place of employment, which over time helps to build up school culture, experience in mentoring new teachers, and stability when administrators don't stay at schools anywhere near as long as they used to. Some of our poorest performing schools in the state have large amount of faculty turnover each year. Tenure gives teachers an incentive to stay because they know they can't be replaced as easily as those still on "at will" contracts.

Again, I think tenure is a misunderstood system generally. People think it means a job for life after 4 years of teaching but that's just not the case.

One other thing that I want to say is that I'm not against reforming the tenure process generally. To get it after 4 years of teaching seems like a VERY low bar to me, especially for a career that is going to last 30+ years. What's crazy is that in New York City you get it after one year.

 

[Ron Mehico]

The benefits is that it gives due process rights to experienced educators who cannot just simply be fired at will. I think the greatest benefit to students is that it provides an incentive for teachers to stay at their current place of employment, which over time helps to build up school culture, experience in mentoring new teachers, and stability when administrators don't stay at schools anywhere near as long as they used to. Some of our poorest performing schools in the state have large amount of faculty turnover each year. Tenure gives teachers an incentive to stay because they know they can't be replaced as easily as those still on "at will" contracts.

Again, I think tenure is a misunderstood system generally. People think it means a job for life after 4 years of teaching but that's just not the case.

Those are fair points. Overall do those potential benefits outweigh the real world negatives that the policy has produced? Who knows, but arguing is a moot point anyway, as the teachers union would never have that benefit up for debate anyway I wouldn’t think.

 

[KYExtemper]

Those are fair points. Overall do those potential benefits outweigh the real world negatives that the policy has produced? Who knows, but arguing is a moot point anyway, as the teachers union would never have that benefit up for debate anyway I wouldn’t think.

I mean, I think it's a discussion worth having. I do think since teaching is kind of a more politicized environment at times - like now - there's merit for it but the system generally should be looked at. I just think there's a lot of other things that can be done to improve student performance like re-examining how we fund special education as a country (e.g. IDEA has never been fully funded), eliminating perverse incentives for not disciplining/holding student accountable, and getting good truancy enforcement back are more worthwhile. Not to mention getting back to a more age-appropriate curriculum in schools and making sure we are giving students LOTS of options in terms of vocations, job training, college prep, etc.

The power of the KEA has been significantly weakened in this state since about 2008. Bevin was a jerk so his reforms got nowhere on pensions but I think if he'd held serve better like Scott Walker did in Wisconsin he may have won that battle in the legislature. The GOP has such a supermajority that they could eliminate tenure tomorrow if they'd want. I think the votes would be there. Beshear would veto but they have the votes to override.

 

[WildcatfaninOhio]

Why do you care what type school it is if the school's kids succeed? CRT & wokeness are religions too.

I care because tax dollars should not be used to support religious institutions.

 

[bushrod1965]

You said you understand why people are against tenure, but then you said the reason for it is your hypothetical made up worst case scenario. How can anyone argue against that? Other than not being as attractive for new hires what are the benefits of tenure? Is it better for the kids?

It’d also be better for the kids if teachers had mandated 16 hour workdays and there were bunkhouses at the school for staff to sleep a few hours between the 16 hour shifts too, LOL. BUT, there has to be an acceptable line between what’s better for kids and what’s acceptable working conditions for degreed professionals. Teacher tenure is one of those working condition pieces. All districts have policies and evaluation plans with procedures for non renewal (dismissal) of tenured staff. If “bad” tenured teachers are allowed to continue employment, it’s due to inept administrators who can’t follow those procedures.

 

[Ron Mehico]

It’d also be better for the kids if teachers had mandated 16 hour workdays and there were bunkhouses at the school for staff to sleep a few hours between the 16 hour shifts too, LOL.

No it wouldn’t

 

[bushrod1965]

No it wouldn’t

So, you have no retort that it’s a fallacy that tenured teachers can’t be dismissed. Cool bro . . .

 

[JumperJack]

All districts have policies and evaluation plans with procedures for non renewal (dismissal) of tenured staff. If “bad” tenured teachers are allowed to continue employment, it’s due to inept administrators who can’t follow those procedures.

?

You have to pretty much commit a felony to get dismissed.

 

[Ron Mehico]

So, you have no retort that it’s a fallacy that tenured teachers can’t be dismissed. Cool bro . . .

So you want me to argue against a point I never made? Are you drunk? What are you even saying?

 

[bushrod1965]

?

You have to pretty much commit a felony to get dismissed.

You’re clueless. Gotta love people who think just because they went to a school that they know how schools operate. Every Kentucky school district has a certified evaluation plan for both tenured and non-tenured staff. The tenured staff evaluation plan has clearly delineated steps for dismissal due to poor job performance. Are there steps and timelines that must be adhered too? Yup. Can an administrator who can read and document dismiss a tenured teacher? Absolutely.

 

[bushrod1965]

So you want me to argue against a point I never made? Are you drunk? What are you even saying?

Got it Ron. I know words are hard. Especially The big ones.