Thanks, the carrot and the plan

First, I want to express my sincere gratitude to the Commissioner of Education and her staff in seeing the value of a tenure system. Even though the Board of Education has not given teachers a reply to the request for tenure that I presented on their behalf, it is very evident that the Commissioner has already begun to apply the merits of a tenure system among our teaching staff. The recent revival of the 60-hour Staff Development credits for re-certification and now the M&M Program for teachers that will allow for the mentoring and monitoring of the teacher workforce are both components of the proposed tenure plan. Although a tenure system offers a more structured and comprehensive plan that extends beyond the 60-hour credits and the quarterly visits by mentors, the Commissioner is on the right track.

However, the primary purpose of tenure is “stability and quality.” The Commissioner is clearly addressing the quality but the only way we can ever address the stability issue is by offering “permanent contracts” in a systematic fashion to ensure that permanent teachers are indeed highly qualified and that we can depend on them to remain in the system for a reasonable amount of time. The 60 percent average turnover rate we are experiencing every four years is too high for maintaining any synergy for a constant progression that will improve the quality of the entire teaching workforce. Many teachers are looking forward to the Board’s response to the tenure proposal and I hope the Board can see the great potential of a tenure system based on what is already coming out of the Tenure proposal that is being adopted by PSS.

As for the carrot, it appears some people have gotten confused about my position on PRAXIS because not only must I speak for those who have or will take PRAXIS and pass, but I must also be concerned about those who won’t take the test or can’t pass PRAXIS because it will affect the 100 percent requirement under NCLB. I want all our teachers to take and pass PRAXIS but it doesn’t seem to be happening and we can’t recruit them at a moment’s notice. I am not straddling the fence on this issue, just offering a real solution and even a “carrot” (tenure and the benefits that come with tenure), which nobody seems to even recognize because, again, they are focused on the messenger and not the message. Tenure is the carrot for the system and teachers and I’m sure time will prove to be the best judge about who is right or wrong on the issue of tenure.

As for the plan to move Garapan Elementary, I totally agree with the Chairman and the PSS because both are right. We need to renovate and even expand the school and what better way to do this than to let someone else foot the bill. Secondly, we don’t need to be talking about doing anything until we have seen the money and are assured that the new school will be built according to PSS’ specifications and not the investor’s. The relocation site is very close to the present site so location should really not be an issue and, from what I understand, the leaser no longer wants the land, which eliminates any doubts about the land usage. I was hoping there would be more optimism on this issue but PSS is saying no “if” and the BOE Chair is saying yes “if”, which didn’t surprise me. I say this because there has been so much subjectivity in the decision-making and not enough objectivity. Furthermore it has been the practice of the Board to follow the vision of the Commissioner and not the Board’s vision for the Commissioner to carry out.

But we must understand the Board is responsible for building and repairing the schools, which makes the proposed move a great cost-saving deal for PSS that we can’t ignore, given the state of Garapan Elementary and our economy. The Commissioner is also right to be concerned about the displacement of the children, but I think that is a question for the parents to decide. People are displaced everyday—all in the name of progress; that’s just the nature of human societies. The question is: Do parents want their children to remain at an old school that will always require constant maintenance and renovations or are parents willing to make the sacrifice of a small distance so their child can attend a modern school that will also help improve our economy? Someone must pay the cost for change and improvement. Will it be parents making the sacrifice (pay the cost) of proximity to allow the investor to come up with the cash or will parents choose for the government to continue maintaining Garapan School with their tax money?

It is issues like this that need to be discussed in board meetings that should be held in the evenings but the Board has failed to honor its own agreement with teachers. Last year the Board promised to have at least four evening meetings that never took place. Hopefully, the Board will now have some evening meeting to let the people they work for decide on this because the parents and children will be the ones paying the cost in the end.

Ambrose Bennett
Teacher Representative