Government schools operate by government rules and you would have to introduce legislation and get it passed that would cancel out the dumb deal the R's made with the Bowen Administration that basically turned the government schools over to the trade unions. That one stupidity began the great decline of government schools in Indiana although Milton Friedman 20 years earlier had pointed out that governent schools were in decline (about the tiime of Sputnik and the first involvement of the Federal government in the area).

I've been there, Abdul–on a local school board. The workload is hellacious and you are expected to be a lapdog for the Superintendent. Woe to the school board member who asks too many questions that run contrary to the Superintendent's goals. Ask Greg Wright and Kelly Bentley–now THAT would be a good morning program for you–get those two July 2, the day AFTER their board terms end.

That said, bad teachers are out there, but not in large number. Yes, they're heavily-protected by contracts. Those contracts are mandated by PL 217. And although I had an excellent working relationship with the teachers' union, we parted paths on this issue, respectfully.

Bad teachers need coached up or out–quickly. The paperwork and time required to do that are not overly burdensome, but it's no walk in the park. An administrator has to have his/her wits about them. And that's where it gets tough.

Bad teachers remain in place because bad administrators won't put in the time to get rid of them. Period. One person is responsible for getting rid of bad teacehrs–the building principal. No Super or Board is ever going to overrule a building principal's non-renewal decision.

And frankly, if I saw one-half of the venom directed at the real problem–bad admins–that I see directed at bad teachers, we'd be in a better position. Our kids would benefit.

Let the Tony Bennetts of the world clean up their own ranks with equal zeal that they display against teachers. Bennett was–at best–a mediocre local district school superintendent. (By the same yardsticks he uses to make his current points) What do we do? Elevate him to the state's highest Ed-job. That is the precise attitude that permeates school admin ranks statewide. Central offices are full of bad building admins. It's disgusting.

Good principals are embarrassed by this wretched practice. There just aren't enough of them.

It's really easy to jump on teachers. They're the front-line in the battle for a quality education. 95% of them are good or excellent. My personal experience with admins is that two-third or more are lazy apologists and Superintendent's hand-maidens.

There is almost no innovative thinking in their ranks. Good principals really stand out.

A school is only as good as its principal. You can smell a good building a mile away…energetic teachers, active parents, engaged and disciplined students.

And they have no problem whatsoever with bad teachers. Those teachers are rooted out, helped for awhile, and if they don't improve, they're encouraged to move on. Too often, another district or another principal snaps them up but that will soon begin to ebb. Teachers grow more expensive with experience. Budgets are forcing many districts to look for less-experienced teachers as a cost-cutting measure.

The above poster is representative of many–and (s)he's wrong. The federal government has bene involved in schools since at least 1940, and probably before. I don't know whether that's good or bad, but someone has to plice these rogue state superintendents who think they know everything. God help us.

Abdul, the next time you've got Bennett on–can you please ask him why he feels particularly qualified to make these stern pronouncements about teachers, testing, grading, etc., when his local district experience was crowned with such medicority? And if he'll address admin competency? I know he got elected and all, but for cryin' out loud…the guy gets a pass almost every time. The Peter Principle personified.

Just this week The Star had an article about an intiative with several colleges and admins, to school them in common-sense business. Hoo-ray. About damned time.

I've been there, Abdul–on a local school board. The workload is hellacious and you are expected to be a lapdog for the Superintendent. Woe to the school board member who asks too many questions that run contrary to the Superintendent's goals. Ask Greg Wright and Kelly Bentley–now THAT would be a good morning program for you–get those two July 2, the day AFTER their board terms end.

That said, bad teachers are out there, but not in large number. Yes, they're heavily-protected by contracts. Those contracts are mandated by PL 217. And although I had an excellent working relationship with the teachers' union, we parted paths on this issue, respectfully.

Bad teachers need coached up or out–quickly. The paperwork and time required to do that are not overly burdensome, but it's no walk in the park. An administrator has to have his/her wits about them. And that's where it gets tough.

Bad teachers remain in place because bad administrators won't put in the time to get rid of them. Period. One person is responsible for getting rid of bad teacehrs–the building principal. No Super or Board is ever going to overrule a building principal's non-renewal decision.

And frankly, if I saw one-half of the venom directed at the real problem–bad admins–that I see directed at bad teachers, we'd be in a better position. Our kids would benefit.

Let the Tony Bennetts of the world clean up their own ranks with equal zeal that they display against teachers. Bennett was–at best–a mediocre local district school superintendent. (By the same yardsticks he uses to make his current points) What do we do? Elevate him to the state's highest Ed-job. That is the precise attitude that permeates school admin ranks statewide. Central offices are full of bad building admins. It's disgusting.

Good principals are embarrassed by this wretched practice. There just aren't enough of them.

It's really easy to jump on teachers. They're the front-line in the battle for a quality education. 95% of them are good or excellent. My personal experience with admins is that two-third or more are lazy apologists and Superintendent's hand-maidens.

There is almost no innovative thinking in their ranks. Good principals really stand out.

A school is only as good as its principal. You can smell a good building a mile away…energetic teachers, active parents, engaged and disciplined students.

And they have no problem whatsoever with bad teachers. Those teachers are rooted out, helped for awhile, and if they don't improve, they're encouraged to move on. Too often, another district or another principal snaps them up but that will soon begin to ebb. Teachers grow more expensive with experience. Budgets are forcing many districts to look for less-experienced teachers as a cost-cutting measure.

The above poster is representative of many–and (s)he's wrong. The federal government has bene involved in schools since at least 1940, and probably before. I don't know whether that's good or bad, but someone has to plice these rogue state superintendents who think they know everything. God help us.

Abdul, the next time you've got Bennett on–can you please ask him why he feels particularly qualified to make these stern pronouncements about teachers, testing, grading, etc., when his local district experience was crowned with such medicority? And if he'll address admin competency? I know he got elected and all, but for cryin' out loud…the guy gets a pass almost every time. The Peter Principle personified.

Just this week The Star had an article about an intiative with several colleges and admins, to school them in common-sense business. Hoo-ray. About damned time.

Come on Abdul. Most teachers' contracts are decided year-to-year. Most are long term deals…two or three years at least.

Furthermore, if we want to attract good teachers to public schools, you aren't going to do it paying them pennies and giving them no benefits.

Amen to many of TA's points. “Bad” Teachers can be removed with adequate and professional documentation by administrators. But a question as to why dump on teacher contracts about senority when contracts between unions and employers in any area always have senority clauses. Again, all the slamming of teachers organizations have a historical basis for existing that few today if less than 60 years of age would have any understanding of. The day of firing a teacher for no reason necessary was a reason many teachers sought protection in a corporation that gave them some rights. The decisions concerning education in our system have a lay board involved —back in the day–those boards (or trustees) could unilaterally impose and fire without reasonable basis for any decisions. Painting the teachers as only interested in pay and protection is very short sighted. Been there done that as a teacher organization president of a local where was one of the first ten corporations in Indiana with a “master contract” and it was simple but allowed for discussion (board still maintained final control) of wide variety to issues rather than simply telling the professionals what they were to do. The issue is far greater than the frequent posters here on constantly slamming “government” schools. If they had been teachers rather than students in some of the private (read religion based) schools they might have understand that simply having a top down dictatorial administration did not/does not always serve everyone well.
Professional educators are there to provide more than daily instruction but are capable of being involved in curriculum and other decisions but if they are silenced by “rules” then a terrible waste of potential is lost.

Hmmmm. I never thought of that, agman.
I don't think most teachers today want much to do with cirr. decisions. They are tired, and they just want to teach.
They're tired of cheap shots taken with broad brushes; those same brushes don't seem to apply to school boards or admins, who have ultimate control.
They're tired of parents who won't get involved unless it's to question well-deserved discipline handed down to their children.
They're tired of dipping into their own pockets for basic school supplies–this has been going on for 15 years or more.
And they're tired of ten-second soundbite answers in an environment that demands thoughtful and collaborative decisions.
But remember, gentle readers–ONE person has control over “bad” teachers. The principal. Always.

TA, may be right about some teachers and involvement in larger than classroom management, but my experience both within my field and others (retired but still active with many activities) is that teachers do wish to have input into what are the goals and objectives of their field and going further into sharing ideas of curriculum content and related activities. My area has history of on-going involvement by teachers state wide being involved in actually authoring course content for state wide distribution, workshops, advocating involvement by state universities and Ivy Tech and working with them on wide variety of activities, etc. (Example: just a few minutes ago I shared thoughts on an activity with all the teachers in the subject statewide and beyond–and I am an old retired teacher.)

There is a common misconception here. Teacher unions do not protect bad teachers. They protect the dismissal process. If a bad teacher could be dismissed without going through the proper process then a good teacher could also. We all know really good teachers who were outspoken or had a principal who had a relative or friend who wanted the good teacher's job. Without due process protections, anything could happen. Bad teachers frequently don't get fired because they have lazy or imcompetent principals. Believe me, teachers and teachers' union want bad teachers out of the profession. It just has be be done through the established process and it is not that difficult.

They're just worn out, Agman. And over-bashed.

Flag on the play, Abdul. Piling on.

Apparently it is very embarrassing to Tony to be honoring a great teacher that will be laid off because of budget cuts.

Blaming others such as the big bad unions for the education budget cuts is just an continuation of the true problem. Mitch decided to take education funding off the more stable property tax rolls and is “forced” to cut $400 million of K-12 education funding, while Tony decided to not even try to apply for hundreds of millions of “Race to the Top” grants after being rejected the first time, and neither work well with others.

While theoretical education policy types like to spout off about poor performing teachers and cumbersome work rules, the truth is bad teachers are fired and good teachers are rewarded like any large corporation. No one wants to keep poor performing people in the classroom and not make AYP goals. “Cumbersome” work rules are largely the same as many big corporate HR policies and the only reason they are cumbersome is because administrators are not as skilled in following or using the policies as their private sector counterparts.

To give Mitch and Tony credit they have given clear directions to school corporations to go after administrative waste and duplication first before teacher layoffs when looking at budget cuts, but sometimes you get what you pay for.

Anyways, Tony and Mitch should be embarrassed. Clearly our children are getting the short end of the stick.

P.S. Higher Education should take a much larger burden of state education funding cuts than K-12 considering their non-stop building spree fueled by taxpayers and more diversified and stable revenue sources.

Don't forget teachers are tired of being extorted thousands of dollars in out of pocket expenses for higher education credits to keep their teaching licenses and then being penalized and become less marketable for having more education and experience. (Much cheaper to hire recent college grad)

Agree 100% on higher-ed subsidies. Not just taxpayer dollars directly but tuition has continued to skyrocket because of government subsidies. It could not cost $50,000 or $80,000 to get a college education, nor could it be some ubiquitous requirement for everything from receptionist (I've seen it) to software engineer to lawyer if low-interest, government money wasn't made available to essentially turn college into what used to be high school.

The question here that is begged is: Is the 'proper process' a good one?

I mean, seriously, to we want to 'praise the system' here?

If a principle gets abusive, then let the school board hear out the complaints and do the work to remove him. They're at least as rare as the bad teacher.

A friend just pointed me to a website for Indianapolis Water (who should get the AT&T Customer Non-Service Award) where a sales job was posted on their HR page.

I kid you not; it asked for a master's of PhD. To sell freaking water.

Someone had better get that utility back in good hands. What a mental wasteland. Higher ed subsidies or not, apparently we need to write a thesis to sell water.

I wonder if they'd accept an EdS or EdD degree? Plenty of those wandering around mimicking school administrators.

***master's OR PhD

Agreed, was once in a position of defending a “bad” teacher before the super with point being there was absolutely no documentation, no evidence of principal ever indicating anything negative to teacher, and not suggestions for teacher making change, etc. Truthfully the entire teacher organization agreed that teacher should be gone, but without any effort to build a case there was an issue of “due process” failure. Fortunately for the system even thro the teacher was not dismissed, she left the system.

Dodger manager, Tommy Lasorda, said a particular player who had a drug or alcohol problem didn't have a disease, he had a weakness. I think that's true when we excuse excesses and lack of resonsibility from all of our demographics- particularly the edges.

We're suppossed to be accepting of foreign policy that benefits particular corportations within particular states represented by particular Senators. We're to accept “compassion” in subsidizing childbirth, even though there's a statistical correlation in abuse, neglect, obeisity, lack of academic success, and repetition of this cycle in children from single parent or dysfunctional families. We're to overlook the failure of education administrators, or financial regulators, or all manner of benefits means-testers, or suppossedly balanced and even-handed media- who are to protect us – to watch-out, to manage and look for corruption and abuse on behalf of the average taxpayer?

There's been a documentary on Harry Truman on PBS. At one point, he was digging and found all kinds of waste, fraud, abuse, and graft associated with defense contracts. Where is “that guy” when it comes to our dollars in public education- or any of these other issues?

I concede looking for “the easy way” and seeking to “have a nice day” runs through the gamut of mankind. But, basically, aren't we in America spoiled, lazy, and rotten to permit what we've become? Aren't we victims of our own weakness?

This goes on as long as we permit it.

I would pay $10 to sit in a room to hear Greg Wright and Kelly Bentley answer any question put before them. Instead, those that would dare to ask tough questions are ones that go away.

Amen, Taxpayer. Amen.

Ask Greg sometime about the insane measures to which his Superintendent went, to instill a Loyalty Oath in school policy. Now, if a board member dares to criticize, (s)he has potentially violated policies.

It's all very Reaganesque. And scary.

Kelly Bentley was the best of an incompetent bunch. But she could have kicked up some real public anger, could have found real dirt, could have used Roberts Rules to tie the Board up, could, could & could. OK she had some serious disagreements with Eugene but not nearly vocal enough. Headlines are needed, radical behavior is needed, the reckoning is coming to IPS. Principals are replaced with a regularity that is mystifying and the Board questions little and only with proper, graceful, timid, decorum. They would be laughed out of the House of Commons. Get over the departure of Kelly, picking around the edges and introducing motions. With little comment on them to the public the tactic was ineffectual. The new at-large member sees herself eating lunch with students, going to musicals and cannot imagine sitting behind a computer screen. God help the students of IPS.

“Bad teachers remain in place because bad administrators won't put in the time to get rid of them. Period. One person is responsible for getting rid of bad teacehrs–the building principal. No Super or Board is ever going to overrule a building principal's non-renewal decision.

And frankly, if I saw one-half of the venom directed at the real problem–bad admins–that I see directed at bad teachers, we'd be in a better position. Our kids would benefit.”

TA–I'm in love with my husband, but you're coming in a close second!

And RonSchneider–it's easy being an arm chair school board member. Stop talking about people and things you know nothing about and go get a life.

Abdul I agree. It is just like how IPS cannot budget their money the right way. We leaving our children behind while us adults create more and more bureaucratic red tape!

While I don't agree with all of Mrs. Bentley's positions, she was always pragmatic and always mindful of impact to the taxpayer. She should be thanked for her years of service to the IPS and for being the lone independent voice much of the time, not criticized. Got to respect that she answers comments in blogs and sticks up for herself.

OK, as for the rest of the Board . . . It will be interesting to see how they deal with, rather, FAIL to deal with the tax caps. State takeover? It would be the best thing for IPS in 40 years.

There is life ASB (After School Board), Kelly. I wish you nothing but happiness.

Your grief factor will decrease immediately on July 2. Your BS meter will stop running on overdrive. Your tolerance for crapola will be much more defined.

And. most importantly, your objectivity will remain the same, albeit not so scarred by admin-speak.

Walk out of the EdCenter, don't look back, and know that you did your best. Always. And we are thankful for it. Support the remaining (or incoming) board members who keep an open mind. That would most assuredly NOT include Mr. Brown and Dr. Busch.

You qualified for combat pay. You put up with a declining system AND Eugene.

Yakking about IPS is like little old men complaining about the weather.
What specific changes to PL 217 would Kelly recommend? I suppose TA could also rise to this bait since he claims to have had school board experiences.
The basic flaw in government schools is that they are government schools organized on the socialism model and so they can barely function. Soviet Collective farms suffer from exactly the same disorders.

Since you asked, smartass, I'll tell you. I've posted it here before, so I'll try to type real slowly so you can get it:

1. I'd repeal the tenure sections of the collective bargaining law. I'd institute a job-protection initiative that encouraged master teachers to assist teachers in trouble, and give them a semester to heal. I'd reduce the classload of any master teacher involved in that situation, so that he/she could work diligently on assisting the colleague. After that, I'd provide out-sourcing and make the subject teacher dismissal a part of their permanent record. I might consider an exemption for those subjects where it's almost impossible to find teachers…but that would have to be sternly debated. By your numerous ridiculous posts I can tell you have no idea how frequent teachers district-jump, and get re-hired after a righteous dismissal.

2. I'd amend the admin licensing law, to allow anyone with a master's degree and six weeks of intense educational system in-service, to be a principal. It'd be like watching the roaches run when you turn on the lights. I'd make one person in each building specifically and statutorily responsible for teacher retention/dismissal. And give that administrator the resources and time required to monitor both ends of teacher performance–good and bad.

3. As much as I detest what Bennett and Daniels are doing to public schools, I understand their frustration and their anger. I'd do-away with the election of the state Super, and make it a legislative-endorsed confirmation of a gubernatorial appointment.

4. Again, not part of PL 217, but I'd give any district with less than 50% grad rates, one year to improve, or bust them up.

Poof. Be. Gone.

Of course, I would prefer to hear from a more recent graduate of the School Board experience, one who sounds as though she was in the minority instead of the majority. So would, I suspect, most of the readers of this blog.
As I view your improved model of government schools I see that you have missed the whole point and no one would purchase willingly any shares of stock issued on behalf of your collective farm. Had you stopped with the period at the end of this sentence, “I'd repeal the tenure sections of the collective bargaining law.” Mitch might have appointed you to something.
I wonder if Greg will sound off?

Too, as one reflects on the problem, IPASS probably (being modern day ronins) likes the law the way it is. Why? Well, a super moving into a school system certainly cannot be held accountable for the turkeys he inherited and there are too many of them to occupy his time. If he attended to the “process” he would have no time left for any other part of his job.
As to the “process”, some posters here are complete with other world b.s. There is also a process for climbing Mt. Everest. I don't think it is wise to have the latter comparable to the former. Indiana is generally an “at will” State and there is nothing special about workers who happen to be employed in government day care facilities.
Removing bad teachers (probably less than 10%) has the further virtue of holding the above mentioned IPASS ronins to account. That is why they are more comfortable mainting the dregs of their profession on the public pap. It makes their job so much easier.

So, Greg and Kelly, sound off. Shall we maintain the system we have or improve it? What, in your view, about Pl 217, the original contract with the teacher union (about which local school boards can do nothing) should be modified in the interest of taxpayers, kids, parents?

Cal–the board is the final appeal body. By law or regulation or policy, the process is: local principal, superintendent or his designee, then the board.

The board cannot and should not get involved in any potential or actual appeal, until the process is followed thoroughly. But your point is well-taken.

Having posed the question I can speculate that Greg's position on PL 217 would simply be to repeal it. Tearing down the whole rotten ediface and repudiating it's numerous cancers would jump start the needed progress and begin to restore fiscal sanity to Indiana budgets. Recall the defense of the Marion, IN employees of their school system had average health care costs of $30,000.00 per employee with no objection from the liberals who post here.
The benefits recieved from government schools should approximate their cost. I think a pretty good case could be made for IPS and a great number of other government schemes that their current costs greatly exceed any benefits they may provide. More clearly, the public does not get a dollar's worth of value for a dollar's worth of taxation.
And, I will accept any reasonable wager that I have Greg's position on PL 217 exact.