Other provisions in bargaining bill concern school officials
By Dan Gearino Journal Des Moines Bureau | Posted: Thursday, March 27, 2008
DES MOINES -- Debate on a union bargaining bill has been focused on a provision that expands the scope of contract talks, but school officials say they have grave concerns about a section that changes the procedure for firing teachers.
The bill, which Gov. Chet Culver has threatened to veto, would shorten the process for determining if a teacher should be removed. The measure has passed the House and Senate.
Under current law, attempts to remove a teacher can last years and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Advocates say the bill would reduce the time and cost by stopping the cases from being challenged in court.
"It would be a huge cost savings to all sides," said Sen. Brian Schoenjahn, D-Arlington, a retired teacher who supports the bill.
But school officials adamantly oppose the proposal. They say it tilts in favor of teachers, potentially at the expense of everyone else. "This is a giant leap without a lot of data to support it," said Waterloo School Superintendent Dewitt Jones.
The current process has a series of steps: First, an administrator decides to petition the school board to fire a teacher; second the school board votes to fire a teacher; third, if the teacher wishes to appeal, a neutral adjudicator reviews the evidence and decides whether to uphold the board's decision; fourth, if either side disagrees with the adjudicator, they can take the case to district court.
The new proposal would eliminate all but the third step of the process. Cases would go directly to an adjudicator and neither side would have the option to appeal the decision. The final ruling would be known in months, as opposed to years.
Margaret Buckton, chief lobbyist for the Iowa Association of School Boards, says adjudicators have tended to rule in favor of teachers.
Because of this, she said she thinks school boards should retain the ability to appeal. "It's hard enough right now" to fire teachers, she said. "We don't need to make it harder."
The main supporters of the bill are public-employee unions, such as the Iowa State Education Association. Brad Hudson, a lobbyist for the union, said the current process is broken because it takes so long to resolve cases.
"The person's career is put in limbo for a two- to four-year period," Hudson said.
Another part of the bill would make it more difficult to fire new teachers. Current law says new teachers have a probationary period of up to three years, during which time they can be fired for just about any reason. The bill would get rid of the probationary period, which the school boards association says would make Iowa the only state without such a rule.
Schoenjahn, the senator and former teacher, says the probationary period is outdated. He says new teachers face a thorough vetting process that wasn't there when he entered the profession, including background checks and regular evaluations, developments that he thinks reduce the need for the probationary period.
The larger issue for the bill's opponents is the process. The measure was written without any input from the school boards. Legislative Democrats disclosed the contents early last week and hoped to pass it in two days.
Republicans used stall tactics to delay the final Senate vote until Monday.
The school boards association has asked its members to contact Culver's office and urge a veto. The association's president, Jack Hill of North Scott Community Schools, made his case in a letter sent Wednesday.
"Governor, please veto H.F. 2645 in order to ensure all Iowa's children get the best education possible from the best teachers available," Hill said.
Dan Gearino can be reached at 515-243-0138 and dan.gearino@lee.net.
The bill, which Gov. Chet Culver has threatened to veto, would shorten the process for determining if a teacher should be removed. The measure has passed the House and Senate.
Under current law, attempts to remove a teacher can last years and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Advocates say the bill would reduce the time and cost by stopping the cases from being challenged in court.
"It would be a huge cost savings to all sides," said Sen. Brian Schoenjahn, D-Arlington, a retired teacher who supports the bill.
But school officials adamantly oppose the proposal. They say it tilts in favor of teachers, potentially at the expense of everyone else. "This is a giant leap without a lot of data to support it," said Waterloo School Superintendent Dewitt Jones.
The current process has a series of steps: First, an administrator decides to petition the school board to fire a teacher; second the school board votes to fire a teacher; third, if the teacher wishes to appeal, a neutral adjudicator reviews the evidence and decides whether to uphold the board's decision; fourth, if either side disagrees with the adjudicator, they can take the case to district court.
The new proposal would eliminate all but the third step of the process. Cases would go directly to an adjudicator and neither side would have the option to appeal the decision. The final ruling would be known in months, as opposed to years.
Margaret Buckton, chief lobbyist for the Iowa Association of School Boards, says adjudicators have tended to rule in favor of teachers.
Because of this, she said she thinks school boards should retain the ability to appeal. "It's hard enough right now" to fire teachers, she said. "We don't need to make it harder."
The main supporters of the bill are public-employee unions, such as the Iowa State Education Association. Brad Hudson, a lobbyist for the union, said the current process is broken because it takes so long to resolve cases.
"The person's career is put in limbo for a two- to four-year period," Hudson said.
Another part of the bill would make it more difficult to fire new teachers. Current law says new teachers have a probationary period of up to three years, during which time they can be fired for just about any reason. The bill would get rid of the probationary period, which the school boards association says would make Iowa the only state without such a rule.
Schoenjahn, the senator and former teacher, says the probationary period is outdated. He says new teachers face a thorough vetting process that wasn't there when he entered the profession, including background checks and regular evaluations, developments that he thinks reduce the need for the probationary period.
The larger issue for the bill's opponents is the process. The measure was written without any input from the school boards. Legislative Democrats disclosed the contents early last week and hoped to pass it in two days.
Republicans used stall tactics to delay the final Senate vote until Monday.
The school boards association has asked its members to contact Culver's office and urge a veto. The association's president, Jack Hill of North Scott Community Schools, made his case in a letter sent Wednesday.
"Governor, please veto H.F. 2645 in order to ensure all Iowa's children get the best education possible from the best teachers available," Hill said.
Dan Gearino can be reached at 515-243-0138 and dan.gearino@lee.net.
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 0 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
