Factories or schools -- which should it be

After reading Walter Cochran's, Jan. 21, Letter to the Editor, I felt compelled to offer some personal insights. In a series of articles, I hope to advocate for our schools, our teachers, and most importantly, our kids.

I am the son of a career teacher in the Nevada R-5 School District. My mother, Marjorie Carpenter, taught for more than 30 years in the Nevada schools. I have never known of anyone who took their responsibility to their students more sincerely than she did. My sister and I have many times been told by adults years later, that she made a tremendous impact on their lives.

I was educated from kindergarten through high school in the R-5 district. I received what I consider a first class education. Later I graduated from Missouri Southern State University, with a teaching degree. I taught high school in El Dorado Springs for several years.

I had four stepchildren who graduated from NHS, and all went on to obtain college degrees. I think the education they received here, played a major part in their success, as it did for me years earlier.

So those are the credentials that I bring to these articles. I will let you be the judge of whether you feel I am credible, in my thoughts and assertions. I do not claim to be an expert on these subjects as many others do.

Article 1 will deal with apples and oranges. There is a premise among many that our schools are not performing well. If we evaluate only some urban school districts, I would agree with them. Unfortunately, comparing any of our local school districts, to those in the underachieving metro areas, is like comparing apples to oranges.

In several of the urban cities of Missouri, the schools experience many issues that tend to deflate outcomes. The first cause and effect issue is location. The inner city schools of Kansas City had student numbers that once totaled well above 50,000. As the neighborhoods declined, the schools followed the same pattern. It was difficult for the schools to hire skilled teachers, due to the dangers that were rampant in the areas.

In most of our metro school districts in Missouri, the schools were staffed by teachers who were members of a union called the American Federation of Teachers.

I am not trying to be a union basher, but there are lots of differences between the teacher organizations that exist in our rural schools, and those of the unions. If you want to fire a union teacher, it is very difficult.

That leads me to the topic of tenure, which is under attack in our state. First and foremost, there is a huge misconception, that a tenured teacher cannot be fired. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Tenure in any of our local school districts is obtained only after the teacher has been given a contract for five successive years. It would probably make more sense, if we called this five-year period probation.

At anytime during those five non-tenure years, a new teacher's contract might not be offered. No reason had to be given, if the administration determined they should not be rehired.

After five years, the only change in status for the teacher was that they became tenured, or in my mind came off probation. They could still be fired for cause, but a cause had to be documented.

The argument against tenure is that teachers become bad after they are tenured. That is perhaps the most ridiculous argument about tenure. Every school district has five years to watch, assess, and determine, if a teacher is doing a good job. Can any of you think of another profession, where the probation period lasts for five years?

In most of our local schools we have a core group of wonderful teachers. Many of them are married, and become integral members of our local communities.

Without the security of tenure, few of them would be able to plan for any permanence, such as buying a home. While a tenure contact does not guarantee you cannot be relieved of your teaching duties for poor performance, it does offer good dedicated teachers some sense of security.

I would like all of my readers to think back to the teachers who made a difference in their lives. Like many of you, I have several of my very own favorites.

Marie Hensley-Thomas was my sixth grade teacher at Bryan. She remains an inspiration for me to this day. I cannot imagine my educational experience, without thinking of the wonderful days in her classroom.

So, to those who think that tenure is a horrible practice, I would like them to remember those great teachers from their own school days. How many of them do you think would have been able to impact so many lives for so many years, if there was no tenure?

I maintain, that any school district that has a competent administration, is perfectly able to determine during a five-year probation period, if they have a good teacher. Also, in the succeeding years, they can legally rid themselves of a teacher who becomes incompetent.

Doing away with tenure is overkill. Tenure offers a sensible way to evaluate and maintain good teachers, without allowing poor ones to remain, regardless of their length of service. It is not tenure that keeps bad teachers on the job.

Again, tenure is simply a method for a probationary period to determine ability. It also gives the teacher the confidence, that if they keep up the good work, they cannot be fired without cause.

In upcoming articles about education, I am going to discuss ideas like performance testing and student movement from one district to another. In the meantime, visit with those favorite retired teachers from your past. They are the real education experts! See what they think.