Response to Dr. Inos

In regards to the “turnover rate,” I see the turnover rate as a problem but the Commissioner rejected the fact that our turnover rate is high enough to create an “unstable” teacher workforce. Based on the Commissioner’s own statistics presented to the board on March 2, “8.9 + 12.7 + 10.9 + 14.5 + 11.5 = 58.5 percent of the teachers at PSS were replaced between 2002 to 2006.” We are replacing over half of our teaching staff every five years, which I see as a large inhibitor to improving the overall quality of education in the CNMI. I have based my assessment on the COE’s facts, which clearly indicates, that we have a problem. The fact that we are far below the national average should be enough to realize that change is needed.

I agree with the COE that the tenure issue does not comply with the “existing” policies of the board, which is why changes in policy are necessary. The COE apparently wants to maintain a status quo but our teachers are behind the rest of America’s teachers when it comes to job security and the disparity gap between our teachers and the rest of America’s teachers is only getting bigger with the implementation of PRAXIS and the refusal to give teachers their pay increases. It is my duty as the Teacher Rep to try and prove to the board that change is necessary because the teachers that I represent want tenure. I know we teachers are in good company since tenure is supported by national organizations that the Board of Education is a member of.

What I found disturbing was the COE making a public rejection of tenure when the board has been sitting on the issue since last year. The committee in charge of the tenure issue has refused to meet so that teachers can be given the professional courtesy of presenting their concerns. I see this as an attempt to kill the issue before teachers even had the opportunity to have their concerns be heard. I also see the reference to the proposal as being Mr. Bennett’s as another attempt to kill the messenger when the proposal is a request made by 74 percent of the teachers I represent. The COE, however, refused to give teachers and their proposal the respect due them.

It is obvious that professional organizations, teachers and myself disagree with the Commissioner on tenure, which is why administrations that have “fought” against tenure have encountered more problems than solutions because of the administrations’ unwillingness to change. Times have changed and so must BOE policy, just as the Constitution, laws and other policies have to change with the expectation of the people they serve. The good part is the COE is only stating the administration’s position on tenure and not the board’s position because the board has yet to do or say anything. Teachers and myself are still looking forward to the board addressing this issue.

Ambrose Bennett
Teacher Representative