I believe teachers have an extremely important job as their influence shapes the future of our nation. Because of this simple fact, however, I do not believe that tenure should be given away so freely to teachers. There ARE too many ineffective, lazy teachers who do not take their responsibility seriously. I vote that tenure should only be granted after ten years of a teacher showing exemplary results with their students. Anything less is selling our children's futures short.

Senator Cunningham is absolutely correct. I think the 10 year for tenure is fair. We spend a lot of money to educate children, and if you look at the results in some area's, they are not good. Our taxes keep going up, and our homes keep going down in value. Let's get rid of ineffective teachers.

I'm all for rooting out ineffective teachers, I just find it hard to believe that increasing time to reach tenure is the solution. According to the article, tenured teachers can still be fired for "immoral conduct; incompetency, inefficiency,..." and a bunch of other things. What other reasons do you need, and how exactly does increasing time to tenure help you? Honest question, I do want to be enlightened on this issue, thanks!

I agree with Mr. Higgins, the ...incompetency, inefficiency...wording gives administrators all the ammo they need to get rid of a lousy teacher. The administrators need to get some backbone and fire those teachers. Incompetency is usually seen in a worker within 5 years. I also agree with the fact that school boards being political entities can decide to "clean house" and put good teachers out of work for voicing there opinion on political issues. Leave it at 5 years and make the administrators do their job by evaluating teachers in the classroom.

Cindy: I completely get that. But they do hire and fire superintendents. It's still a system in which politics can play a part. Thanks for your reply!

Thanks Kurt. Working with & watching the political wheel in Jeff City spin over the last 5 years in balance with watching three daughters go through all the levels of schooling. I have to say that there is more political posturing/biting in the schools than at the capital. That said, how do we right the ship that is sailing on the wrong course? Again my observations over time and in several different school districts yields to me some trends. First is schools hire young education majors directly out of college expecting them to serve as seasoned professionals. These teachers need mentoring, which all too often does not happen, mostly for financial reasons. Couple the inexperienced with ability to get fired at any moment and for any reason (trumped up or not) and you have a large group of teachers terrified acting like long tailed cats in a room filled with rocking chairs. The other observation is something happens to the mindset of a tenured teacher. She/he knows how to play the political game and understands the parameters. The results are all too often a teacher lacking proper motivation. The trend is complacency, laziness, and/or willfulness. In all of these the losers are the students.

Sorry, I did want to sound too harsh...These are just trends and not statements about every teacher individually. To me it shows the need for better management of the asset known as personnel. Tenure should be eliminated because it acts as a "one size fits all" solution to a much more complex problem. It is the easy answer, the easy road leading to failure. The much harder road, yielding better educational fruit, is to create an environment of mentoring from day one, a feeling of security and accomplishment, fostering a sense of appreciation in pay and in career movement. I do not have the answers. I just know that the solutions lie in taking the harder road of life long educating our educators to thereby benefit the generations to come. Our careers are journeys and not destinations.

I guess I do not fully understand what tenure actully provides to job security. As noted above educators can be let go for a variety reason and can be rifed as well (based on senority in most districts). I do feel for the teacher that is completing there third or fourth year only be told what use to be the rule isn't anymore. Than they (hopefully) spend the next five or six years hoping it isn't raised again.

When the administrators such as the principals and superintendents are held to the same standards as the teachers, that is the only time things will change. It's ironic that there is no mention of the principals or superintendents role in the school system and tenure.
If the tenure is changed to 10 years, you are going to see a decline in new teachers, and a far worse decline of people remaining in this profession.

Re Earl's comment: I'm wondering if we have seen data here, on how frequently teachers are fired for "immoral conduct; incompetency, inefficiency,..."? Interesting point Earl.

There is no room for tenure. There are young, energetic teachers coming out of school that are willing to teach, while some seasoned teachers just want to collect a paycheck. I work in construction and I belong (unfortunately) to a labor union. If I mess up there is no tenure to save me. I just get laid off and have to job search, again. Educators should not get a pass from failure. Doctors lose their license if they fail, why can't teachers?

Good for Chappelle-Nadal for voting her conscience rather than caving to the pressures of going with the flow. Teachers' unions and the NEA are extremely powerful and influential entities with no shortage of funds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdgzBNh6kEM

When a tenured teacher needs to be let go, the union gets in a tizzy and fires both barrels at the school district. The district needs to be able to manage its staff to meet the needs of the children, not the teachers union. God bless our teachers as they do a great service to our society, but that does give the *unions* the right to protect bad teachers at all costs.

We can delve into tenure, budgets, teacher comp., and school board issues all day long. And just watch, people surely will delve- as the divisive boilerplate arguments are established in other states. The true motive here is to stir up sentiment against the teacher unions, and I fear public education itself - for political reasons. Hard to believe that public education can be made into a wedge issue, but that is getting to be the case.

I have a parochial school background, yet have been greatly impressed by quality of teachers and support staff (young and old) over the last several years at my daughters' public schools.

The education of our kids is a collaborative effort, with more experienced teachers helping the younger who bring valuable energy to the school. Toss out your business models that so-called "reformers" want to impose on schools -education is and always has been personal.

I am sure some here will share public school experiences that aren't as positive as ours. We will likely read much negativity about teacher unions. It just goes to show, like any endeavor or workplace - schools, teachers and unions are far from perfect. Any teacher will tell you that. However, in this new economic climate, where a quality public education is more important than ever, it is a shame that public education and teaching is being singled out in this manner by politicians.

Fixed income, Ladue public schools have some of the best yeast scores around, maybe the union run schools are the best. Who do you think is in the trenches?teachers, they have the experience to fight for student learning.

I can tell you as a public school teacher with 20 years of experience that I have never seen such an antagonistic atmosphere towards those of us who have chosen this profession as I have in the last 1-2 years. I chose to teach because I love it. I work hard and I am good at it. I do not want anyone's sympathy or pity...I just want to be left alone to do the job I am capable of doing. Where are the posts about doctors? Lawyers? Bankers? Street Sweepers? Waiters? Insurance Agents? Realtors? Where is the republican outrage regarding these people? Why doesn't Jane Cunningham set up a task force on telecommunication workers? All I ask to be left alone...if you can't do that, spread your scrutiny of teachers across the professional diversity of occupations. Tell me another profession where 50% of the entrants quit within five years. And if teachers have it easy, are overpaid and do nothing...sign up or shut up.

Speaking from experience, tenure does not prevent school districts from firing teachers who are ineffective or who violate district policies. As a school board member, I have participated in meetings where we have removed tenured teachers. Tenure prevents teachers from being fired for frivolous reasons. Tenure is important because boards change, and in the past, board members have tried to remove teachers because they disagree with their politics. Any administrator who is doing his or her job will spot a problem teacher before they earn tenure. In our district, the MNEA does not defend ineffective teachers. Why? Because ineffective teachers make everyone's job more difficult.

If the administration of a school district can't figure out in five years if a classroom teacher is doing an acceptable job I would believe it is the administration that need to be replaced. I can't think of any private sector positions that have a ten year probationary period.

You are right David. But the state senate's bill does just the opposite.

When will the legislators stop blaming the teachers for all the problems, maybe we can fully fund public schools, let teachers do their jobs.

I agree Gataclu. It is the job of the administrators to get rid of incompetent teachers, so let them do their jobs, and let the excellent teachers do theirs. The legislators would do better to address the problems of homelessness, joblessness and the breakdown of the family in order to increase learning as all of these things have a negative impact upon students and their ability to learn.

Count on our sound bite society to think that the problem with education boils down to tenure. Tenure can't protect bad teachers if administrators document poor performance and the face-to-face conversations that should come from a less-than desirable performance review. Unfortunately, most administrators can't carve out the time for adequate evaluation of each staff member. Others just may not have the disposition required for tough management. And there are more that a few adminstrators out there who simply don't know what good or bad teaching looks like. I find it fascinating that the public seems to focus all their ire on the teachers. Yes, there are bad teachers, but there wouldn't be if administrators did the difficult part of their jobs.

This isn't to imply that administrators have it easy or take the easy way out. A meaningful teacher evaluation requires more than observation; it should include lesson plan reviews, meaningful outcome measures, peer reviews to name a few tools. The difficulty is that classrooms are sole proprietorships that have to recreate a product using all new raw materials each and every year. It is hard to pinpoint where a problems lies in this ver fluid production stream, and the administrator who does it successfully is worth her/his weight in gold. The task most boards and Superintendents fail at lies here -- they don't protect and develop the soft asset skills of our admintrators so that they can get the best work out their teachers.

Someone has emailed me (quite indignantly, I might add!) and said that, in fact, hiring and firing of teachers IS a responsibility of the school board. He did not wish to participate in this conversation online, however. Does anyone know if he is correct?

Administration has to get approval from the board of education.

Yes, school boards are responsible for hiring and firing teachers. I am a teacher. I signed my contract last week, but will not technically have a job until the next school board meeting when they approve it. I agree that all teachers should be teaching to their max ability all the time, whether or not they have tenure, and in a perfect world, I would say tenure could be eliminated. But, unfortunately, there are people who would take advantage of that. My dad was a teacher for 30 years. After teaching at a school for 25 years, the school board president that was elected did not like my dad because, as a coach, he had not played her son as much as she thought he should have. Because of this she influenced the rest of the board to take away his coaching responsibilities (that he had held for 25 years). These positions were not protected by tenure. I know that if he wouldn't have had tenure, despite his good evaluations, she would have had him fired from his teaching job also. This is only because she simply didn't agree with him or like him. I don't think tenure should be an excuse for ANY teacher to slack off. And honestly, most of us take our job very seriously and do EVERY thing we can to help our students be successful, because that is our job and it's what we love to do. I'm afraid taking tenure away is going to contribute to very good teachers losing their jobs for reasons unrelated to their teaching abilities.

CreveCoeurDad, the difference is we are dealing with the safety and well being of children. Teachers are mandated reporters. If students suffer abuse we have to an need to report the incident, even if it is the principal of the school or the superintendent or better yet a school board member.

"Perhaps what is needed is a system that limits board power and leaves personnel decisions up to the professionals within the district"

Agreed and it already exists. It's called tenure.

All then tenure in Missouri does is give due process. If teachers aren't performing , with good administration they will not stay in the classroom. 5 years is too long to wait if a teacher isn't doing a good job. Tenure should be given t in the first 3 years, we shouldn't wait for ten years.

mfj wrote: "I have not granted my lawyer, banker, street sweeper, waiter, insurance agent nor realtor have tenure. If they aren't doing their job, then I will replace them with someone who will do it. If I don't do my job, then someone will replace me. Why should teachers be treated any differently?"

It is simple- it is education, the business models do not apply in most circumstances. Generally-public schools can not choose or refuse students. If you are a lawyer or an insurance agent and your customer does not pay their bill or follow your rules of the deal, you can drop that customer. Teachers do not have that luxury-when parents don't show up for conferences or send kids to school without basic preparations or care.

I think you knew this difference already though. And not to be snarky - but you still can fire a teacher and home school or use a private school.

We've had no problem at all communicating with our public school and teachers over any concerns (fortunately not many). Actually, our teachers and the administration have been more responsive to us as individuals than any private or quasi-private sector service that we pay for- such as insurance, doctors, waiters, etc etc.

I am really doubtful that most parents prefer the state step in and regulate more/ handle matters with a school that any good parent should be able to handle themself.

The anti teacher movement is scary. if teachers have it so easy with their tenure, high pay driving their fancy cars, then I guess some people made the wrong decision when they went to school. State with tenure and strong teacher unions have higher test scores.

Due process is afforded to anyone employed in any company. There are gov. regulations that protect the employee from unfair practices of the employer. Every company follows those standards and if it doesnt than the employee can legally challenge a decision to be dismissed. It is my understanding that tenure was given to school districts by the gov prior to these across te board regulations. Unions fought for fair and just treatment of their people and the gov heard those concerns and thus created what today is the Equal Opportunity policy...it may not be called...
School districts have added perpfrmance standards that are teacher evaluations on a yearly basis . Appealing an evaluation is always an option . School boards are guided by their attorney in cases of dismissal and the documentation MUST BE FAIR and without any discriminating evidence. Tenure has run its course . It is a law under the new law so to speak.

Tenure protects children. And I always see companies treating their employees fairly?????

Teri, a probationary teacher in Missouri can be non-renewed for their contracts without reason and there is nothing they can do about it. Read up on teacher tenure law in this state if you need more explanation. Essentially, consider what it is like to teach for five years somewhere and just before you are tenured you are let go with no explanation and there is nothing you can do about it, and no one may have tried to help you get to be better at teaching in that entire time. I fail to see how making this a longer and more stressful process for teachers is doing anything to help students. To see how a successful system is run, look to Finland : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8601207.stm

Every school district has a set procedure that it incorporates to evaluate each teacher yearly. These evaluations are documentations that are discussed with the teacher twice a year by the principal. These evals can be changed through discussions with the principal . The teacher does have input and is aware of the performance standards.
Now if you do have access to the teacher tenure law, I would like to read it or you can post where to find here so everyone in this discussion can have a basis for their comments.
As far as your wedsite I went to it I dont see how it pertains to tenure. I see Finland focusing on gifted and talented and yes scores will be high then..... I see them having only one common language witl little immigration.... and I see the teachers are held in high esteem.... where does the tenure law come into play with the link ?
I think you overlooked my comment that dismmissals can be appealed under law.

Terri, my point is that attacking teacher tenure does nothing toward increasing student achievement, and no credible study shows that it does. Rather, a better method of hiring and developing new teachers is clearly needed. In the Finnish system, top college and graduate students are recruited to teach who are experts in their fields of study instead of holding our worthless American "education" degree. Perhaps if we paid teachers much more and held them in high esteem, like in Finland, we would be attracting the best and the brightest to the profession instead of losing them to the other more well-paying professions in our country. The Finnish system does not just focus on the gifted and talented, you must not have read the part of the article concerning the additional teacher required per classroom to help those that are not at the top end of the scale. ”A tactic used in virtually every lesson is the provision of an additional teacher who helps those who struggle in a particular subject. But the pupils are all kept in the same classroom, regardless of their ability in that particular subject.” It is striking though, that as the article states: "In 2006, Finland's pupils scored the highest average results in science and reading in the whole of the developed world." Since the problem that we are trying to address is student achievement, it seems pointless to ignore what works, and instead attack tenure as if this is the answer to the problem.

It is not the tax payers fault that you chose a career that involved being underpaid, unappreciated and full of all the frustrations. If you weren't smart enough to research the career you chose then should you really be teaching kids anything? You, as well as everyone else gets what you deserve every payday. If you don't like the pay, benefits and the lucrative pension (75% of your last three years) the quit and find something more satisfying and rewarding. But please research the job so the taxpayers don't have to hear your bellyaching.

doctors get taxpayers' money? I didnt know that. what are you referring to striek? I am sure Dan wants to be a teacher .He researched his job career and is comprtive enough to perform in a reasonable way as not to worry about a yearly contract with his employer.

in regards to Ladue schools being union, my understanidng the district's salary schedule is based on merit pay . teacher organizations such as MNEA and MSTA do have collective bargaining and discuss with the school board throughout the year issues that arise . MNEA does represent teachers that individual issues with a teaching situation

PS I am not aware of any school district that is union except for St. Louis City Public Schools.

Go to the senate Mo gov. and check out all Senators and their newsletter to their constituents. You can be skepitcal as much as you want but read some what is being said around you. And yes parents will not openly criticize a teacher's position , especially if it entails a threat to the teacher's job.
Why would you think I am making this this up? This pubication I am referring to is a fact from a State Senator. It is not my opinion I threw this in the discussio so you can see what is being sent to Sneators ( well at least mine) in regards to what parents are saying to the Senator because you said parents like tenure , That's all just read some other views before you argue . I have red your opinions and I have not seen any facts backing it up except for that fact that is the way you think.

well then you dont really know too much except by your small personal experience in your schools. MO. is a big state with alot of school districts. Personal experience is very limited in a discussion about a law to reform teacher tenure. Calling Senators in the state of MO liars makes your credibility tenuous striek I fiind it disrespectful to accuse senators of conjuring up false statements. Your opinions have been all but idle arguments now .

Terri Detter... Why are you afraid to talk to a teacher with tenure? This doesn't give us super powers.

you have taken that comment out of context Getaclu

Earl, teacher organizations as MNEA and MSTA are not unions. The members are teachers who are assigned the task to meet with BOE during salary and benefit discussions. It is a weak collective bargaining discussion if you will. The organization does not have the authority to call a strike and the discussions are just that discussion with the BOE having the final decisions. In the schools in MO a no strike policy is in place, something that originated with govt employees not being allowed to strike/work stoppage. I think anyway

I mentioned to Striek that Brian Nieves has a constituents newsletter and has expressed that parents are in favor of a reformed tenure law. Striek didnt buy that because of her experience paraents were all supported of the teachers. I then explain there are parents who are reluctant to say any negatives toward teacher job security in an overt way but would and do voice that opinion elsewhere and not directly to the teacher in their school distract. aka Brian Nieves website where parents in his district have favored reformed . does that clarify ?

Wow. Brian Nieves - never heard of this guy until today. Good grief - why am I even debating this topic when you reference such an extremist clown.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/who-knew-secession-again-on-the-agenda-in-missouri/255980/