Students Come First Laws Upheld In Idaho District Court

In a ruling last week, Idaho Judge Timothy Hansen ruled in favor of a series of laws that localized administrative power, phased out teacher tenure and eliminated early retirement bonuses.

The district court decision is in response to a suit filed in April by the Idaho Education Association against parts of the state's Students Come First laws, including restructuring school districts' collective bargaining process.

"We will continue to move forward in implementing the Students Come First reform efforts that have already begun improving public education for all students across Idaho," Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna said in a statement Friday.

In addition to shifting power more to localities and moving away from teacher tenure, the Students Come First laws eliminate seniority as a criterion in determining "Reduction in Force" and also offers "Pay for Performance," in which teachers can earn bonuses by working hard-to fill positions, taking on leadership roles or for working in a school that meets student growth targets.

Still, IEA General Counsel Paul Stark says the organization will appeal to the state Supreme Court, Boise State Public Radio reports. A referendum on the laws will appear on the November ballot.

"We recognize this issue and the fate of Students Come First will remain in the courts - including the court of public opinion," Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter said in a statement Friday. "Superintendent Luna and I are confident that Idaho citizens understand what's at stake. What's important today is that these necessary and responsible reforms are continuing to move forward."

Several other states have adopted pieces of legislation similar to portions of Idaho's Students Come First laws. Laws that change collective bargaining rights or the hiring and firing of teachers have passed in Wisconsin, Georgia and Colorado, to name a few.

Comments

[concernedazvoter]

07:42 AM on 10/08/2011

I'm reading this in Cairo, Egypt. After 20 years of serving in the same urban Phoenix school, and I consider my 20 years of teaching in a Title 1 school, a service: to children, to parents, to my country, I left to teach in a foreign city. It was NOT an easy decision. I feel valued for my service again. I can teach children concepts and problem solving, to be thinkers, to love reading books. I don't have to teach to a bubble in test that seems to be the ONLY measure of the worthiness of a student or educator. And yes, I am/was a member of the NEA. Do I agree with all of their policies? NO! But I also disagree, wholeheartedly with the what appears to be the complete abandonment of public education. I have a Master's Degree plus 60 hours over in professional development; I applied and submitted a 60 page evaluation of my teaching and instructional practices to the National Board Certification unit.My experience and knowledge may mean absolutely nothing to a district that can hire someone at a lower cost. The adage is "you get what you pay for!" This new-found hatred (maybe I exaggerate a tad) of public school teachers will come around to bite the lawmakers down the road. It's another form of class warfare, which public education was supposed solve how many decades ago. They have proven that that is exactly what they don't want: an educated middle class.

[chgotchr]

11:24 PM on 10/04/2011

Why would anyone spend thousands of dollars to go to college and get certified as a teacher and then lose a job and (possibly) be banned from the work because a principal decided that he or she didn't like the teacher. Why would anyone go to college and get certified and then take a job that doesn't pay enough to even pay back the student loan. In 5 years, there won't be any ed. majors in college and soon enough the teacher pipeline will completely dry up. I guess that's what "they" want.

[trekie70]

09:26 AM on 10/04/2011

There should be a balance between the needs of the teachers and the needs of the students. good teachers should be rewarded, abusive teachers should be sent packing. The expectations of both groups should also be balanced and each side should do their best to do their part.

[DanInLA]

10:44 AM on 10/04/2011

I wish the world was as simple as you think it is.

[trekie70]

07:46 PM on 10/04/2011

Much of life is very simple until ideology gets in the way of solutions.

[Sara Williams]

05:26 AM on 10/04/2011

I hope that in removing tenure, teachers who bully students or just impede learning in general will find themselves packing. No more putting children through day after day of harassment just because of some contract that guarantees them a job.

I'm not anti-teacher, but I've been in positions where the teacher's well-being was put in front of mine, and they were allowed to be abusive. That shouldn't ever happen, not even once. Protect the good teachers and pay them well, but can the nasty old hags.

[am10]

07:46 AM on 10/04/2011

I'm hoping quality veteran teachers aren't fired because they cost too much or heaven forbid, run a tight ship and have high expectations.

[DanInLA]

10:45 AM on 10/04/2011

You sound like you're carrying around some baggage from your childhood.

[John P Squibob]

12:19 AM on 10/04/2011

Tenure was instituted because admin would hire friends, relatives, or god forbid those who had political ties. Tenure protected "good" teachers from admin who didn't like them due to being, oh no...gay, conservative, liberal or just having a tattoo.

Bad teachers do need to be policed by the union and teachers. Plus the Universities need to do a better job screening prospective teachers.

Word!

[John P Squibob]

12:15 AM on 10/04/2011

Love that deceptive language, in reality it's called, "lowest paid teachers in the US." All in the name of children! NOT!

[been2there]

10:41 PM on 10/03/2011

Union busting will make teaching even less attractive to the top of the class--and then people will whine about teachers not being good enough. When CEOs demand high wages, it is seen as proof of their worth, but when teachers want a living wage, let alone one commensurate with their education, expertise, and work-load, they are seen as greedy!

[John P Squibob]

12:14 AM on 10/04/2011

true that!

[vote4anya]

08:14 PM on 10/03/2011

Yet another cleverly-named piece of legislation. Who could possibly be against putting the students' needs first? But, what does the legislation actually do?

Just like No Child Left Behind -- why would anyone want to live children behind? We have to vote for that! But, wait... it really wasn't good for children and it wasted a lot of state resources.

[frogfan23]

08:10 PM on 10/03/2011

This article sickens me. Teachers (whether in a union or not) are forced to sacrifice their free time and their money to make sure that students' needs come before their own. Is that wrong? Yes because it's not given freely. It's expected these days, regardless of the students' demographic background. And what makes it so bad is that whenever a teacher tries to complain, the administrators throw it back in the teacher's face by saying "we have to accommodate our students". What teacher is going to be a jerk and say they don't want to accommodate students or parents? That's just sick and twisted. As a second year teacher, I already have an expiration date for my career in public education. I now understand why over 50% of teachers leave the profession within the first five years. Who wants to be forced to bend over backwards and work your fingers to the bone in order to accommodate parents and students who are to lazy to hold up their end of the deal?

[vickibarkley]

04:03 PM on 10/03/2011

There is a fundamental flaw in the reasoning of these corporatist educational reformers. They assume that teacher and student interests are fundamentally at cross purposes. I do not understand the reasoning that assumes a stressed teacher is a better one. If class sizes are reduced, it is good for both teacher and student. If students are well-prepared for instruction, it benefits everyone. If a school is hard to staff, it's because working conditions are inferior. If we took care of our children and our schools, teachers would take care of instruction.

Of course, the real issue here is that public education represents a vast amount of public money that private interests want to control. If teachers are empowered, they cannot be controlled. This is underneath all the nonsense.

[h23154]

06:00 PM on 10/03/2011

I fail to see one iota of benefit to students from tenure in public schools, LIFO as a basis for cutbacks, etc. Tenure at universities where professors are encouraged to conduct research and write books, iand generally be cutting edge is one thing, Tenure for public school teachers is nothing more than job security regardless of performance.

[Amy Samson]

07:46 PM on 10/03/2011

You don't have to be without tenure to be an unstressed teacher. There are a myriad of other ways public school teachers are stressed today--I think that's what Vicki was trying to say. The working conditions in some schools are deplorable (for both teachers and students), huge class sizes in primary grades are creating less than ideal learning conditions, and on top of all of this, teacher morale (including in non-unionized states) appears to be at an all-time low. It could be due to the barrage of the constant "good teachers don't need computers, books, or support services to teach; good teachers just need chalk" mentality the country appears to be suffering from at the moment.

This is coming from someone who is not a unionized, tenured teacher who isn't interested in teachers' unions at all.

[GeorgeBurnsWasRight]

07:49 PM on 10/03/2011

Tenure was instituted because of widespread problems from government jobs being given out as political favors.

With the increasing political polarization in our country today, I suspect that without tenure in many places a teacher will not be able to find a job unless their political views agree with those of the political party currently in power.

If you don't think this can happen, you should look into how the Bush administration staffed Iraq after the US victory. Almost the sole criteria for hiring the tens of thousands of civilian workers was whether they agreed with conservative principles. This was intentional, as the neocons truly believed that people with "correct" political views objectively out-performed everyone else. A person's experience and ability were considered as nearly inconsequential compared to their ideology.

This led to stupidities like hiring a group of recently-graduated fraternity brothers to run one of the critical operations in Iraq. The group was quoted as saying, "How hard can it be to run a country? After all, we always managed to pull off successful keg parties." (This quote was reported by a Lt. Colonel who was tasked with the unenviable task of liaising with these people.)