The New Jersey
Tenure Reform Bill, formally called the Teacher Effectiveness and
Accountability for the Children of New Jersey Act (TEACH-NJ Act), is a product
of Governor Christie’s 2-year advocacy for educational reform in New Jersey. This bipartisan bill was passed
unanimously this past June by legislators and signed by Governor Christie on
August 6th, 2012.
The new law is the first landmark reform on the previous tenure law in
over 100 years and will affect teachers and administration alike. As noted in a press release from
the office of Governor Christie this new law is supposed to ensure that the
most effective and ineffective teachers are identified to provide for the best
possible education of New Jersey students. My review of the statement from the governor’s office on the
law (www.state.nj.us/governor) and of NJEA’s website (njea.org) helped discern
the new changes from the previous tenure law. The new law has supporters feeling optimistic and others
uncertain about the future of education in New Jersey.
Among the
provisions of the TEACH-NJ Act is the general idea that the attainment,
maintenance, and the loss of tenure will be heavily linked to the effectiveness
of each teacher in the classroom.
A teacher’s effectiveness, however, is going to be based solely on their
evaluation ratings, which in turn is to be determined by job requirements,
professional standards, and of course student performance and growth. This idea has many worried, and perhaps
rightly so, because although many factors in a student’s life may attribute to
their performance, the schools put total responsibility of student progress on
the teacher. Also, of concern is
the fact that although teacher evaluations are to rely on many aspects, the
provision that requires the partial use of objective measures of student growth
does not specify what is considered “partial”. With school districts being able to choose which evaluation
tool they implement, so long as the provisions are met, the standard for what
is considered partial may vary.
More specifically,
tenure will no longer be awarded after just 3 years, but instead will only be
awarded after 4 years. These 4
years must include a year of mentoring for 1st year teachers,
followed by 2 years of evaluation ratings of effective or highly effective in
the 3 years following mentorship.
Although I foresee the mentor requirement having mostly beneficial
influences, an immediate concern here is of the quality of the 1st
year mentor, which could influence a new teacher’s performance for better or
for worse if not carefully selected.
Positive
evaluations must be maintained or the revocation of tenure will ensue after 2
years of ineffective or partially ineffective ratings. The only way to prolong
tenure charges at that point is to make an improvement in one year of
evaluations in which case it is up to the superintendent to develop and provide
plans for support for the teachers in this situation in order to lead to
improved evaluations.
The revocation provision may seem fair
at first glance until the thought of seniority rights arises. As of present, seniority rights are
still intact meaning that the policy of what Governor Christie calls “last in
first out”, still protects grandfathered teachers who may or may not be
qualified teachers anymore, while newer teachers will continue to be the first
victims of district layoffs. As
reported by nj.com (Critics say education reform bill signed by Gov.
Christie doesn't fix state's biggest issues),
among several other big proponents to end the implementation of seniority
rights like Senator Kyrillos, is state education commissioner, Christopher Cerf
who claims, that due to the inclusion of seniority rights the TEACH-NJ act is a
great disappointment in terms of total reform.
NJEA lists other
conditions of the TEACH-NJ Act, such as the duty of conducting the evaluation
belonging administration as an annual summative evaluation and for those whom
have received poor evaluation rating, a school improvement panel (consisting of
the principal, vice principal, and another teacher) midyear. The TEACH-NJ Act also moves tenure
cases out of the courts, caps the cost at $7, 500 instead of the $100, 000 it
often used to cost, and limits the resolution of a tenure suit to 105 days in
an attempt to provide incentive to bring and resolve tenure suits. Due process also remains intact for
cases of appeal over the loss of tenure or employment.
As Laura Waters,
the president of the Lawrence Township school board, writes on her blog, NJ
Left Behind, only 30 school districts out
of 591 in New Jersey in the year long pilot program. One of her main concerns, as is one of mine, is whether or not
1 year is sufficient to work out all the possible difficulties that may arise
before the TEACH-NJ Act is fully implemented during the 2013-2014 school year. This is
especially so in regards to the controversy over the validity of NJ SMART,
which is currently the states data system on student growth.
There are a
multitude of opinions, questions, and concerns that revolve around the new
tenure TEACH-NJ Act, many of which may not be attended to in the foreseeable
future. What remains certain is
that proponents of the law including Governor Christie see this as the best
possible option for the tenure reform in New Jersey, as he was quoted on njspotlight.com (Compromise, Caffeine, and Trade-Offs:
Behind NJ's New Tenure Reform Bill) as
saying, “my decision was there was enough really good things in this bill that
I was not going to allow it not to become law because it didn’t have everything
I wanted”.
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2012/Bills/S1500/1455_R1.HTM
No comments:
Post a Comment