One of the

most debated proposals in Gov. Roy Barnes's A-Plus

Education Reform Act of 2000 involves teacher tenure.

Despite the fact that there are many compelling ideas

presented, and some alarming ones, Barnes's call for an

end to teacher tenure has received the most coverage and

created the strangest alliances as political players seek

to weigh in on the issue.

Most people view teacher

tenure as guaranteed employment following a period of

satisfactory performance in the classroom. Opponents tend

to think of tenure as job security regardless of

performance. Teachers know that what tenure really means

is the right to a fair hearing, or due process, prior to

dismissal from one's job.

The relevant Georgia codes,

20-2-211, 20-2-940 and 20-2-942 through 20-2-947, often

referred to as the Fair Dismissal Act, dictate the

circumstances in which a tenured teacher may be fired

with just cause and the procedures that must be followed

to bring about the separation.

After three consecutive

years of satisfactory employment with the same local

board of education, and upon signing a renewal contract

for a fourth year, a teacher earns the right to not be

demoted or terminated without just cause. Tenured

teachers can be fired for a variety of infractions listed

as "grounds for termination" in the code

section 20-2-940, such as willful neglect of duties,

incompetency, insubordination, or staff reductions due to

a drop in student enrollment or elimination of programs.

Non-tenured teachers may be

dismissed at any time after the initial contract with no

cause or explanation.

Is it more difficult to

fire a teacher with tenure?

Yes, in terms of the cost

and time.

In the long term though,

Georgians may find that an individual due process hearing

is far less complicated and expensive than utilizing the

judicial system to air grievances over wrongful

termination, which will be the only remedy left to

teachers who feel that they have been unfairly dismissed.

Judy Byrd, director of

human resources in the Fayette County school system,

believes that "Georgia will see teachers more open

to protection from teacher unions [through] collective

bargaining."

Many Georgians may find it

surprising that Georgia is a "right to work"

state and that participation in educator associations,

like the Georgia Association of Educators (GAE), is

strictly voluntary. There is no collective bargaining of

teacher contracts by big unions here, yet.

As for Fayette stats, Mrs.

Byrd reports that in the four years since relevant data

have been collected, three tenured teachers have been

fired. Eleven non-tenured teachers have been separated

from employment, with an additional average of seven

resignations each year when non-tenured teachers are

faced with the prospect of non-renewal. Mrs. Byrd says

she is "skeptical that, in the long run, abolishment

of tenure will improve education."

Organizations like GAE and

our local affiliate, the Fayette County Association of

Educators (FCAE), maintain that teachers will be employed

at the subjective will of administrators. George Davis,

FCAE president and a teacher at Booth Middle, fears that

loss of tenure will produce a working environment in

which "you are `safe' as long as they `like'

you."

Davis, who views teaching

as "both a science and an art," believes the

loss of job security will hinder creativity and

risk-taking in the classroom. He rebukes the notion that

education is a "cookie-cutter process." Davis

says that "teaching means making a connection

between each individual student and the teacher during

every class in every day."

Many parent opponents of

tenure argue that they are weary of innovations in

teaching which have failed. Many parents believe Barnes's

HB 1187 to be a step in the right direction. Yet, what if

there were teachers who agreed with those parents, but

because disavowing an educational product or methodology

would entail an unforeseen expense, they were fired

rather than heard?

Some in the corporate work

force view tenured security to be a vast departure from

what they would see in terms of their own jobs, and

believe that teachers should have to answer to the same

standards.

What are other opponents of

tenure saying? Ask Gov. Barnes. He says that he's tired

of excuses for why Georgians rank near the bottom

nationally in student performance on standardized tests.

He said in his state of the state address last week that

"good teachers don't need tenure, and bad teachers

don't deserve it."

Barnes blasted political

pundits for "spreading myths" about what his

education reform package will mean for Georgians. He has

weighed in heavily against anyone who remains reticent

about his sweeping plan.

Many parents, educators and

legislators, though, are tired of Barnes's rhetoric that

to take a stand against this bill means you are taking a

stand against improving education for Georgia's children.

Frankly, I'm tired of

Barnes and his power grabbing, solely appointed

authorities and agencies which seem to strip-mine the

very soil under our local feet. While he may be

well-intentioned in trying to rid Georgia's classrooms of

teaching mediocrity, he may be ridding Georgian

classrooms of teachers altogether.

His claim to pay for

quality in teaching is mostly lip service. He will spend

far more for his newly formed Office of Educational

Accountability in the long run, should HB 1187 pass, for

another bureaucratic monolith we do not need, and one,

incidentally, that is accountable to no one but the

governor himself.

Without tenure, and all pay

incentives being tied to standardized test performance, I

don't see how underperforming schools are going to find

willing teachers.

Even in teaching

environments where children come to school ready to

learn, "a majority of new teachers leave the

profession by year five of their career due to

dissatisfaction and the inability to make an

impact," according to George Davis.

And where's the red herring

in all of this? Linda Schrenko, state school

superintendent and a long-time opponent of tenure and

status quo education, has sided with teachers in urging a

rewrite of HB 1187.

Despite the lashing from

fellow Republicans for what many view as political

suicide, Schrenko is aligning herself with the only group

with enough political power to put the brakes on Barnes's

runaway train.

Personally, any time a big

government initiative, some "all saving or all is

lost" sweeping reform, makes for such strange

bedfellows (like the World Trade Organization convention

in Seattle before Christmas and Linda Schrenko and tenure

proponents now), I have to line up on the side of

skepticism.

I believe that far greater

improvement can be achieved by the elimination of

teachers who teach out of their fields of expertise and a

rigorous program of national board certification.

I am loathe to say that I

favor a due process which might harbor someone who is

incompetent in the classroom, but I am more loathe to

favor the elimination of due process.