• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing NC GOP debacle thread

Deacon923 said:
By the way, here's the tenure law. You guys tell me if you think it's already easy enough to fire a teacher for inadequate performance. http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_115C/GS_115C-325.html
Click to expand...

For those too lazy to actually read it:
Grounds for Dismissal or Demotion of a Career Employee.
(1) Grounds. - No career employee shall be dismissed or demoted or employed on a part-time basis except for one or more of the following:
a. Inadequate performance.
b. Immorality.
c. Insubordination.
d. Neglect of duty.
e. Physical or mental incapacity.
f. Habitual or excessive use of alcohol or nonmedical use of a controlled substance as defined in Article 5 of Chapter 90 of the General Statutes.
g. Conviction of a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude.
h. Advocating the overthrow of the government of the United States or of the State of North Carolina by force, violence, or other unlawful means.
i. Failure to fulfill the duties and responsibilities imposed upon teachers or school administrators by the General Statutes of this State.
j. Failure to comply with such reasonable requirements as the board may prescribe.
k. Any cause which constitutes grounds for the revocation of the career teacher's teaching license or the career school administrator's administrator license.
l. A justifiable decrease in the number of positions due to district reorganization, decreased enrollment, or decreased funding, provided that there is compliance with subdivision (2).
m. Failure to maintain his or her license in a current status.
n. Failure to repay money owed to the State in accordance with the provisions of Article 60, Chapter 143 of the General Statutes.
o. Providing false information or knowingly omitting a material fact on an application for employment or in response to a preemployment inquiry.

(2) Reduction in Force. - Before recommending to a board the dismissal or demotion of the career employee pursuant to G.S. 115C-325(e)(1)l., the superintendent shall give written notice to the career employee by certified mail or personal delivery of his intention to make such recommendation and shall set forth as part of his or her recommendation the grounds upon which he or she believes such dismissal or demotion is justified. The notice shall include a statement to the effect that if the career employee within 15 days after receipt of the notice requests a review, he or she shall be entitled to have the proposed recommendations of the superintendent reviewed by the board. Within the 15-day period after receipt of the notice, the career employee may file with the superintendent a written request for a hearing before the board within 10 days. If the career employee requests a hearing before the board, the hearing procedures provided in G.S. 115C-325(j3) shall be followed. If no request is made within the 15-day period, the superintendent may file his or her recommendation with the board. If, after considering the recommendation of the superintendent and the evidence adduced at the hearing if there is one, the board concludes that the grounds for the recommendation are true and substantiated by a preponderance of the evidence, the board, if it sees fit, may by resolution order such dismissal. Provisions of this section which permit a hearing by a hearing officer shall not apply to a dismissal or demotion recommended pursuant to G.S. 115C-325(e)(1)l.
When a career employee is dismissed pursuant to G.S. 115C-325(e)(1)l., above, his or her name shall be placed on a list of available career employees to be maintained by the board.
(3) Inadequate Performance. - In determining whether the professional performance of a career employee is adequate, consideration shall be given to regular and special evaluation reports prepared in accordance with the published policy of the employing local school administrative unit and to any published standards of performance which shall have been adopted by the board. Failure to notify a career employee of an inadequacy or deficiency in performance shall be conclusive evidence of satisfactory performance. Inadequate performance for a teacher shall mean (i) the failure to perform at a proficient level on any standard of the evaluation instrument or (ii) otherwise performing in a manner that is below standard. However, for a probationary teacher, a performance rating below proficient may or may not be deemed adequate at that stage of development by a superintendent or designee. For a career teacher, a performance rating below proficient shall constitute inadequate performance unless the principal noted on the instrument that the teacher is making adequate progress toward proficiency given the circumstances.


Yeah, this socialist policy is definitely holding back our public schools. How can the public school system withstand the encumbrance of a dismissal hearing for fired teachers who request them?
 
You cut it off too soon. There are several more paragraphs, including requirements of a hearing in front of the full school board.

ETA: Do you really think it's just a hearing? You don't think any paperwork, repeated documented warnings, and copious CYA meetings and memos are involved? You posted paragraph (3), which essentially requires "regular and special evaluation reports" and a requirement to notify a teacher of "an inadequacy or deficiency" and if there is no notification, a conclusive presumption of satisfactory performance. How many man-hours of a principal's time do you think would have to go into all that, plus at least one hearing? Would you be surprised that most administrators would prefer to ignore the situation, especially marginal situations, or shuffle the teacher around to a different assignment?

Anyone who pays attention to the Tunnels knows I am one of the strongest proponents of the public schools here. If the teachers want to make a stand on tenure that's their prerogative, but I simply don't agree that tenure as currently constructed is a mission-critical piece of a quality public school system. Especially not one that is focused on educating kids, as opposed to a jobs program for adults. I seriously, seriously doubt that the elimination of tenure will lead to some sudden wave of cronyism and arbitrary firing of quality teachers.

A question that I have not had time to research: assume the tenure law is repealed. I believe that government employees still have some basic due process rights. I would be curious to know what the default firing rules are for state/local government employees without a special statute like the tenure law. Seems unlikely that they are completely at will. Does anyone know?
 
Last edited:
I don't believe an inconvenient amount of paperwork is a worthy cause to end teacher tenure, and as far as I can tell from the news articles, school principles and superintendents aren't the ones pushing this legislation. It's a phantom problem being championed by a NC legislative body that's pushing private education and chipping away at employee rights.
 
Without a vested property right or other statutory protection they would have no due process.
 
I'm seeing a lot on FB that the new fracking laws basically neuter the local governments from reaping any benefits and tie their hands on the ability to put any environmental restrictions in place.
 
bmoneydeac said:
I'm seeing a lot on FB that the new fracking laws basically neuter the local governments from reaping any benefits and tie their hands on the ability to put any environmental restrictions in place.
Click to expand...

#smallgovernment
 
PhDeac said:
explain+these+grades.jpg
Click to expand...

if someone could photoshop the dad out of "today," the boards would appreciate it. we'd give jh jerking material for a month, and he'd leave us alone.

thanks.
 
Ball State Deac said:
Without a vested property right or other statutory protection they would have no due process.
Click to expand...

My question was whether, absent the tenure law, other statutes or common law provides due process. For example, the State Personnel Act. I'm pretty sure almost all state employees have the opportunity for a hearing before termination, and the termination generally has to be for "just cause". Here's a link to the NC State Human Resources Manual section on discipline. http://www.oshr.nc.gov/Guide/Policies/7_Discipline,%20Appeals%20and%20Grievances/Disciplinary%20Actions,%20Suspension%20and%20Dismissal.pdf

It looks like public school employees are exempted from the State Personnel Act, no doubt because they are already covered under the tenure law. It seems to me that public school employees should be treated just like any other state government employee, so my solution would be remove the exemption from the SPA at the same time as the removal of tenure.
 
Deacon923 said:
My question was whether, absent the tenure law, other statutes or common law provides due process. For example, the State Personnel Act. I'm pretty sure almost all state employees have the opportunity for a hearing before termination, and the termination generally has to be for "just cause". Here's a link to the NC State Human Resources Manual section on discipline. http://www.oshr.nc.gov/Guide/Policies/7_Discipline,%20Appeals%20and%20Grievances/Disciplinary%20Actions,%20Suspension%20and%20Dismissal.pdf

It looks like public school employees are exempted from the State Personnel Act, no doubt because they are already covered under the tenure law. It seems to me that public school employees should be treated just like any other state government employee, so my solution would be remove the exemption from the SPA at the same time as the removal of tenure.
Click to expand...


The nature of what teachers do and who they have to answer to is so different from anyone else. Principals aren't the ones pursuing this...I've seen principals defend teachers tenure. The ones who concern me are the 180+ students and parents each year a teacher has to answer to. My wife has had to be incredibly guarded, and even still there have been kids who have tried to get to her. There have to be some type of protections for a teacher who has proven themselves against the whims of teenagers and parents whose precious little angel can do no wrong. If you want to reduce that to simply a hearing prior to dismissal, we could have that discussion. But just unilaterally ending tenure? That's not going to fly.

And that gets to a larger issue I have with this beyond just tenure. The GOP is creating an adversarial relationship between voters (parents) and teachers. This isn't going to make things any better.
 
Somehow, charter schools and private schools manage these parent issues just fine without tenure protection for their teachers.
 
Deacon923 said:
Somehow, charter schools and private schools manage these parent issues just fine without tenure protection for their teachers.
Click to expand...

Maybe not (seriously, I don't know if that's true or not)...but charter schools also have a significantly higher turnover rate than traditional schools. I wonder if tenure were part of their benefits if those numbers wouldn't come down to be in line with their public counterparts (this is an honest question, not being sarcastic).
 
Deadbolt said:
And that gets to a larger issue I have with this beyond just tenure. The GOP is creating an adversarial relationship between voters (parents) and teachers. This isn't going to make things any better.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's neither new nor unique to the Republican party.

Dems have been and continue to be awful on education issues via the same methods.
 
Deadbolt said:
Maybe not (seriously, I don't know if that's true or not)...but charter schools also have a significantly higher turnover rate than traditional schools. I wonder if tenure were part of their benefits if those numbers wouldn't come down to be in line with their public counterparts (this is an honest question, not being sarcastic).
Click to expand...

What is your source for that data point?

Turnover is a relative thing. Just because one organization has higher turnover than another, in any industry, doesn't mean much without context.
 
Strickland33 said:
Yeah, but that's neither new nor unique to the Republican party
Dems have been and continue to be awful on education issues via the same methods.
Click to expand...

Can you describe how Democrats have been "awful on education issues via the same method"?
 
Deacon923 said:
What is your source for that data point?

Turnover is a relative thing. Just because one organization has higher turnover than another, in any industry, doesn't mean much without context.
Click to expand...

I'll try and find it when I'm back to a computer. Several different studies I read.
 
"He is also not thrilled with the Senate teacher pay proposal that gives an average of an 11 percent raise to teachers who give up career status protections and slashes almost $400 million in school spending to pay for it, including laying off 7,400 teacher assistants and cutting funding for school nurses.

McCrory’s plan recommended a two percent pay hike for most teachers with a larger raise for teachers just starting out, and he left the career status protections in place.

The Senate budget also includes no new funding to address the textbook crisis in the state. McCrory’s budget proposed $23 million in new funding, not nearly enough, but at least a start.

Senate leaders astonishingly slashed technology for funding for the courts too, despite massively outdated computer systems that threaten the administration of justice. McCrory proposed increased funding for the courts.

Then there is Medicaid. Senate leaders want to kick thousands of people who are aged, blind, or disabled off the health care program.

And the budget rejects McCrory’s painstakingly developed Medicaid reform efforts that expand Accountable Care Organizations to save money and improve patient care by building on the success of Community Care of North Carolina, an approach generally endorsed by medical providers and health care advocates.

The Senate ends Community Care completely, ignores the proposal about Accountable Care Organizations, and sets up a new entity outside the Department of Health and Human Services that has never been seriously discussed in any public setting."

- See more at: http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2014/06/03/mccrorys-moment-has-arrived/#sthash.nefpo4mB.YM5bd9d2.dpuf
 
After overhauling taxes last year in a way that significantly reduced state resources and shifted the tax load away from the wealthiest taxpayers and profitable corporations and onto ordinary North Carolinians, policymakers are using smoke and mirrors to try to hide the damage they’ve done.

Revenue is coming in well below projections for the fiscal year that ends June 30 – a trend that will continue next year, when the shortfall could reach as high as $600 million. The cost of the tax plan now appears far greater than feared, both in dollars and cents and in the harm it is causing ordinary families and communities across the state.

Rather than pause to reflect on the problems they have created, state policymakers are moving to cut vital public programs, shift responsibility to local governments and, yes, cut taxes even more.

The budget recently proposed by the Senate is Exhibit A. Senators want ordinary North Carolinians to pay the price for their reckless tax cuts. Thousands of North Carolinians who are older adults, blind or disabled would lose much-needed affordable health care services. Low-income families would find it more difficult to get child care because of stricter eligibility standards. Teacher assistants would no longer be in the classroom to give additional help and support to a child learning multiplication tables or how to read.

College would continue to be unaffordable for too many at a time when a credential or degree is a ticket to the middle class. And struggling communities would have far less support from the state to build their economies. Senate budget writers know that their plan is not only inadequate, it’s harmful to North Carolina families and the state’s economy.

That’s why they made it a point to generously offer individuals the opportunity to contribute their income tax refund to support teacher pay increases and propose we all buy a license plate to support public education. They also want to reinstate the income tax deduction for teachers who buy their own school supplies – which wouldn’t be needed if the state’s investment in classrooms actually kept up with needs. Another proposal would urge local governments to raise property taxes to support schools and school construction.

This is the game that lawmakers are playing: While they’re more than happy to tout the huge tax cuts given to the wealthy and profitable corporations, they’re far less willing to confront the damage they’ve done to our schools and other services and their efforts to absolve themselves of responsibility to the state’s residents.

And that leads to the most ironic move yet: Even as policymakers seek to shift more functions to communities, they have limited the ability of local governments to manage their own resources. A bill passed last week will eliminate a local tax on businesses operating in communities at the request of big retailers and cost cities nearly $63 million all told. Rather than reform the tax as needed, they just got rid of it starting in 2015. Local governments will be left to raise property taxes or cut local services – you know, those things that people tend to appreciate like garbage collection and firefighters.

Last year’s tax plan and its harmful aftermath must be front and center in the budget debate this session. Without adequate revenue, North Carolina cannot keep up, let alone get ahead. It’s time for lawmakers to face up to that

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/06/03/3908961/nc-lawmakers-must-face-up-to-the.html#storylink=cpy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top