11/23/2009 9:59:00 PM Education lobby petitions court over
law's provisions on teacher contracts
By KRISTA NORSWORTHY Cronkite News Service
PHOENIX - Lawmakers and Gov. Jan Brewer exceeded their authority with a law that among other things prohibits school districts from taking seniority or tenure into account in layoffs, an education lobby argued Monday in a petition to the Arizona Supreme Court.
The law, approved during a special session in August at which lawmakers worked on the budget deficit, takes effect today. Other provisions remove deadlines for districts to offer teaching contracts or notify of a general salary reduction and eliminate a prohibition against reducing the salary of a tenured teacher except as a part of a reduction for all teachers.
John Wright, president of the Arizona Education Association, said at a news conference that the law ultimately would harm the quality of education by making it more attractive for financially struggling districts to get rid of their most experienced teachers. He said some lawmakers missed the measure's implications.
"It was voted at the end of the session, late, and not every legislator reads every provision of every bill that their leadership asks them to vote yes on," he said.
The AEA's petition argues that the law is unconstitutional on several grounds, most notably because the governor called the special session for the state budget, which the group contends isn't related to school districts' employment contracts.
"As a matter of good policy and good government, we believe that during that special session our elected legislators needed to be working on our state's economic woes," Wright said. "Instead, the Legislature determined that removing contract security and allowing arbitrary salary reductions for career educators was a more important focus."
State Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, who voted in favor, said the law improves education by ensuring that the best teachers remain and offering financial flexibility that districts have asked for.
"They want seniority for teachers," she said of the AEA, "but I want the best teachers in the classroom."
The petition names Gov. Jan Brewer and the Attorney General's Office.
Anne Hilby, press secretary for Attorney General Terry Goddard, and Laura Devany, spokeswoman for the Senate Republican leadership, had no comment Monday because their offices hadn't received a copy of the petition.
Calls to the governor's office and the House Republican leadership weren't returned by early Monday evening.
Wright said he expects the Supreme Court to take up the petition early next year. If given the chance to consider the provisions again, lawmakers likely will act differently, he said.
"This type of policy enactment essentially done at night and undercover was essentially done without any public discussion," he said. "If it comes up again, we will welcome the debate we just didn't get to have the debate the first time."
Reader Comments
Posted: Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Article comment by:
Did you really think this through?
To address: Teachers Taking Advantage... I agree that there are some teachers like that, who do take advantage of the system, just like in any other job. People hire family or it's who you know not what you can do. However, you fail to take into account that a majority of our experience teachers are exactly what we need. They know how to work with a variety of students who are all at different levels in one classroom (special ed, English language learners, slow learners, gifted learners) at the same time. New teachers do not know how to do this. It is not taught in college, it is learned over time. Also, many of our more experienced teachers are really good at what they do. Personally, I would not have become the person I am today without the more experienced teachers. A taxpaying American who was able to get a higher education degree and serve my community with respect and understanding.
As for not letting teachers know if they have a job until right before school starts is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. There are no other jobs out there that do that, not even in fast food. I would like our legislator's to think about how they would like it if they were not told they had the job until the week before sessions started every year. Could they prepare for the year? Would they be able to pay the bills if the public said "No, we do not want you back and we do not really need to tell you why"? It is disrespectful and I can guarantee that people would want to stop being teachers. Why would you go into teaching if there is no guarantee that you would have a job from year to year (no security whatsoever). They would go into a profession that they would have stability and would probably pay more, or just move to a different state that provides more security.
Posted: Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Article comment by:
eric
There is no tenure in Arizona. If there are POOR teachers than they are evaluated out...just like everyone else. To repeat, if there are POOR teachers than the administrator needs to do their job CORRECTLY!
Posted: Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Article comment by:
Grundlecat
Every day being a career educator becomes more like being a career burger-flipper. Why does this state even pretend to value education? This is beyond ridiculous, snuck in without notice in a special session, and spells the end of a career for teachers. Why would any district pay $40,000 for a highly trained and experienced teacher when they can get one just out of college for $24,000? Or even less, since it seems the salary schedules are now merely a suggestion not meant to be taken literally. The schools have no incentive or requirement whatsoever to deal fairly and equitably with their teachers. Contract deadlines exist so teachers know enough time in advance that they're out of a job and can find one before the window closes. Schools don't hire year-round: they hire at the end of the school year, period, unless someone dies, quits, or gets fired. If the state has removed contract protections from teachers, then they also need to stop requiring advanced degrees and continuing education, and allow teachers to break contracts just like the districts now can. Why even have contracts in the first place if they're not worth the paper they're written on? Who does it serve? I'm SOOOOOO glad I'm out of what passes for 'education' in Arizona. Even grocery store employees have more job security than teachers now.
Posted: Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Article comment by:
This is unusual.
The AEA lawyer has a pretty valid point. When this was announced as a new law a lot of people (not just teachers) were like "huh, why did they do this?". Basically it says that when districts RIF that they don't have to automatically keep any teacher that's been there for 3 years. That's the way it works now. They can RIF a senior teacher who makes more money based on their evaluations rather than their tenure. The problem is that the evaluations are subjective and the tenure isn't, but the school knows it stands to benefit money-wise by replacing a 20 year teacher with a newer one. It's probably done in other industries but to do it in schools is very scary for teachers.
The ONLY reason these teachers are fighting this is because they would lose their guaranteed paycheck - never mind the fact that most that stand to lose are POOR in the classroom. As a teacher, a huge problem I see is the senior citizens trying to teach the next generation. The teachers often retire and get rehired because of personal relationships with the administration that like to hire their friends and family. Losing the "tenure" would be the BEST thing - get the next generation of teachers in there - they deserve the chance. The "old" staff needs to go!
