I have cross-referenced each section of the Senate’s teacher tenure bill passed last Thursday, March 10, namely SB1528 and its amendment SA0033, against existing statute at Title 49, Chapter 5, Parts 4 and 5 using Michie’s Legal Resources.

Below is a section-by-section recap of how teacher tenure law would be altered per the proposals they approved. In order to follow along, you may want to first print out SB1528 (5 pages). There’s no need to print out the amendment SA0033, though, as it turned out to be nothing more than the correction of numerous grammatical and numbering errors contained in the original bill…which I suppose its sponsors didn’t want detected by any teachers with red pencils.

Section 1: Proposes a change in 49-5-401 as to the date by which teachers are assigned to specific schools for the upcoming school year. Would move date from May 15 to June 15. For your reference, teachers’ first day of school for the school year now underway was August 10.

Section 2: Proposes a change in 49-5-409 as to the date by which teachers may be notified in writing of their termination for the upcoming school year. Would move date from May 15 to June 15, relative to that same August 10 start date for the current school year noted above.

Section 3: Proposes additional instruction in 40-6-409(c) as to teachers’ continuing contracts. Only new instruction is its final sentence reading thusly: “The determination of whether a teacher is qualified for an open position shall be made by the director of schools and the teacher’s most recent evaluations may be a factor in such determination.”

Section 4: Proposes an expanded definition in 49-5-501(6) as to any teachers’ “inefficiency.” Only new instruction is its final sentence reading thusly: “The definition of inefficiency includes but is not limited to having evaluation demonstrating an overall performance effectiveness level that is “below expectations” or “significantly below expectations” as provided in the evaluation guidelines adopted by the state board of education pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 49-1-302.”

Section 5: Proposes extensive changes in 49-5-501(11) in defining teacher “tenure.” Deletes in their entirety three existing definitions of “tenure,” “limited tenure” (applicable to a teacher who may have a position for a limited period of time), and “permanent tenure.” Offers in their place a single new definition of “tenure” which establishes that “A teacher has no property right in their tenure status and must sustain a specified performance effectiveness level on evaluations…to achieve and maintain tenure status.” Also establishes that a tenured teacher may be “…returned to probationary status by the director of schools.” However, provides that “No teacher who acquired tenure status prior to July 1, 2011 shall be returned to probationary status.”

Section 6: Proposes just “housekeeping changes” in 49-5-502(a) addressing how continuing contract law should be construed to impact tenured teachers. Although existing instruction indicates that just teachers possessing “permanent” or “limited” tenure are exempt from the continuing contract law this section references, because the distinctions of “permanent” and “limited” tenure would be abolished in Section 5 above, instruction in this section would therefore exempt all tenured teachers from the continuing contract law.

Section 7: Proposes extensive changes in 49-5-503 as to requirements teachers must fulfill to obtain tenure.

Proposed instruction at item (1) remains unchanged.

Proposed instruction at item (2) adds clarification as to the party which must issue any teacher license, namely the state board of education.

Proposed instruction at item (3) creates a lengthier probationary period for teachers. The present requirement is “3 school years or not less than 27 months within the last 5 year period, the last 1 year being employed in a regular teaching position” The proposed requirement is “5 school years or not less than 45 months within the last 7 years period, the last 2 years being employed in a regular teaching position.”

Proposed instruction at item (4) is new, requiring teachers’ evaluations to reflect performance levels “above expectations” or “significantly above expectations” during the last two years of their probationary period. (Question: Does the evaluation also include a category for teachers performing “at expected level,” and if it does, would or would not those teachers qualify for tenure?).

Proposed instruction at item (5) simply restates instruction formerly numbered as item (4).

Section 8: Proposes extensive changes in 49-5-504 defining teachers’ probationary period.

Proposed instruction at item (a)(1) creates a lengthier probationary period for teachers. The present requirement is “3 school years or not less than 27 months within the last 5 year period.” The proposed requirement is “5 school years or not less than 45 months within the last 7 years period “

Proposed instruction at item (a)(2) is new, requiring teachers’ evaluations to reflect performance levels “above expectations” or “significantly above expectations” during the last two years of their probationary period. (Same question as above: Does the evaluation also include a category for teachers performing “at expected level,” and if it does, would or would not those teachers qualify for tenure?).

Proposed instruction at item (b) is unchanged.

Proposed instruction at item (c) is unchanged.

Proposed instruction at item (d) extends from one year to two years the probationary period applicable to any teacher who has retained tenure, later resigns, then seeks to be reemployed.

Proposed instruction at item (e) is new, requiring tenured teachers receiving two consecutive evaluations reflecting performance levels “below expectations” or “significantly below expectations” to be returned to probationary status until they have received two consecutive evaluations reflecting performance levels “above expectations” or “significantly above expectations,” after which time the teacher is again eligible for tenure.

Proposed instruction at item (f)—erroneously numbered as a second item (e) in the original bill—exempts from instruction at item (e) teachers who acquired tenure prior to June 15, 2011.

Section 9: Proposes changes in 49-5-511(b)(3) as to the manner in which a tenured teacher dismissed because of abolition of a position may be placed on a “preferred list” for rehire. Only new instruction is its final sentence reading thusly: “The teacher’s most recent evaluations may be a factor in such determination.” In contrast, existing text ends with the caveat that “the action shall be in accordance with board policy and any locally negotiated agreement.”

(End)

Note (per my bold lettering of two clauses above) that the bulk of these proposed changes would apply ONLY to future teachers or teachers not yet tenured...but why?

Also, note (per my two parenthetical questions above) that it's not clear whether the performance evaluation now in use contains a "performing at expected level" category, and if so, what becomes of teachers performing at that level?

Finally, note that the companion HB2012 has not yet been voted on by the House or even by its Education Committee, although its Education Committee will hear the bill Tuesday, March 15.