Education Reforms Aim to Limit Representation, Enlarge Government Control

 Tennessee educators are under attack. Recent bills sponsored by a number of legislators seek to “reform” education in the state by removing the voice of educators in issues that impact them. The Senate Education Committee is set to take a stance Wednesday, February 16.

In short, these bills affect retirement benefits, the due process of tenure, and professional negotiations. Overall, they negatively impact education in Tennessee because they restrict the educator's role in representation and have a strong potential to limit the attraction of highly qualified candidates to the profession.

HB 130/SB 113 is the first of such bills. This legislation, sponsored by Rep. Debra Maggart (R-Hendersonville) and Sen. Jack Johnson (R-College Grove) would repeal the Professional Negotiations Law. Teachers in many counties and districts have historically had a voice when it came to aspects of governance that impacted them and their students, including safety, class size, planning time, access to resources and materials, to name a few.

This bill would remove teachers from that process and also eliminate contractual grievance procedures. The right to bargain is important, as it facilitates resolution without costly legal remediation. It also poses no problem whatsoever to education; thus, such a bill amounts to little more than a regression of employee rights.

HB 367, sponsored by Bill Dunn (R-Knoxville) changes the tenure process for Tennessee’s teachers. Teachers who are currently granted tenure and afforded the right of due process after three years of quality service would be, under this bill, granted tenure between the third and tenth years of service. Furthermore, as the bill reads, it “eliminates judicial review of decision to suspend or dismiss a teacher for incompetence, inefficiency, neglect of duty, unprofessional conduct or insubordination.”

In essence, this legislation would strip the current due process of tenure, which serves not to guarantee a teacher’s job, but to protect a teacher from dismissal based on mere personal agenda by ensuring that established protocol be followed before dismissal. This elimination in judicial review only serves to weaken job stability and therefore cripples the prospect of attracting exceptional candidates for the teaching profession in Tennessee.

And, finally—the third most crucial of five total scheduled items--SB 102, sponsored by Dolores Gresham (R-Somerville) would remove from the Tennessee Education Association and the Tennessee Retired Teachers Association, respectively, the right to elect teacher representatives on the Board of Trustees of the Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System (TCRS) representing teachers and retired teachers. As a result, TCRS representatives would be appointed by speakers of the Tennessee Senate and House of Representatives. This shift in representation is unfair to teachers, who contribute a 5% of gross salary, an amount fixed by law, to TCRS. To exclude teachers from this representation eradicates their voice in the administration of retirement benefits and makes TCRS Board of Trustees political appointments.

It is integral for educators to retain a voice in the decision-making process regarding Tennessee teacher retirement benefits, as discussion has surfaced regarding a shift from a Defined Benefit plan—TCRS takes the risk for investment, invests conservatively, and retirement benefits are guaranteed for life, regardless of investment gains or losses—to a Defined Contribution plan—retirement benefits are structured like a 401(k) plan and fluctuate based on stock market gains and losses. Tennessee’s retirement system, one of the top 10 retirement systems in the nation, is actuarialy sound, but if teachers lose representation on the TCRS Board, the future of their retirement benefits may be at risk as well.

Of course, these proposed legislative items directly impact teachers—both financially and professionally, but they also do absolutely nothing to enhance the state of education in Tennessee. In turn, how can they be labeled “reform”? If there are real problems in Tennessee’s education system, they reside elsewhere. Legislators have yet to target some of the real problems: lack of domestic support, limited resources, and the insistent but mistaken belief that test scores are summarily the best indicators of student progress, among others. Add to that the lack of real knowledge of what occurs in a live classroom, or how it functions, by those who are in charge of such legislation.

Therefore, I encourage anyone who can lend a voice to this discussion to contact your respective legislators to inform them what you think about this proposed legislation as soon as possible. The future of Tennessee education—in terms of attracting and retaining the best possible educators—depends upon it.