Public school teachers. Waiting period for permanent status. Dismissal. Initiative statute.

This initiative is one of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “Big 4 Reforms.” Make no mistake; this “reform” is simply an attack by the governor against a group he believes to be a major political enemy—the public school teachers in the state of California. Sadly, it is because of his unwavering support for measures such as Prop 74 that have caused a riff between him and teachers. VOTE NO on 74.

Consider the vast majority of jobs in the state of California. Many have probation periods for workers. These periods are an introductory phase in which the employee is tested to see if they can master the job within an allotted timeframe, in order to continue employment at the place of business. This often ranges somewhere between 3 months to a couple years. For current public school teachers in the state of California, the “probation” period is two years. This period of time is more than long enough to gauge a new teacher’s effectiveness in his or her job. The proposed increase of a teacher’s probation period from 2 to 5 years is unnecessary.

California, especially in certain areas of the Valley, continues to face a shortage of new public school teachers. Increasing the probationary periods for teachers is not going to help matters. In recent years, the state has tried to recruit people to the profession by offering college aid, support programs, and some salary increases. The state still faces a future of insufficient numbers of teachers. While trying to balance schools’ needs for a certain quantity of teachers with the increased focus on the quality of education, the state has trouble finding a way to increase test scores.

Governor Schwarzenegger is going about solving the problem the wrong way. He must realize teachers are essential to the success of education in California. They need his support, not his attacks. Ask any teacher about the solution to increase educational quality in California, and you will get an answer. It is an answer the Governor is not ready to face. Test scores are valuable tools, but they are generally not the best reflection of the teachers working in schools with low marks. Schools in rich districts and low crime areas can attract and pay teachers who are experienced and well qualified. Inner city schools or school districts in repressed economic areas like the Valley communities from Bakersfield to Stockton most often take teachers with ties to the area, paying them at significantly lower rates. These teachers are as committed to the profession as their counterparts in more economically advantaged districts, but it is plainly obvious they do not receive the same resources.

Another thing to consider is the reality of California students. The Valley itself is extremely transitory, with students often being transferred to different schools during a single school year. This is especially evident in Valley towns with agricultural based economies. Farm families often move several times a year as various harvesting seasons begin. Also, the Valley has also become a major immigration destination for families from a number of countries. As the diversity of the Valley increases, so must the ability of schools to assist students in learning English from whichever country their family originated. When test scores are low at these schools, state officials must not seek to blame teachers working there. Instead, they must give extra resources to the schools to support the educators in providing valuable instruction for all students.

Teachers already can be fired. When a teacher is not performing to a level expected, they can lose their job. Proposition 74 only makes it easier for school administrators to fire valuable employees for a longer period of time. It also allows tenured teachers to be fired without the right to challenge their dismissal, the right of due process that is afforded to millions of other Americans in their private or public sector jobs. This proposal is the Governor’s attempt to punish a group of political opponents. In fact, the California Legislative Analyst for the election stated lower costs would only occur in districts where teachers were fired before the five-year probation is up and where a number of permanent, tenured teachers are let go. This would set up a district with high turnover and poor teacher experience in order to keep costs down. How in the world would that positively benefit the students? Again, VOTE NO on 74.