- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Sen. Patricia Birkholz (R) on June 11, 2009, to exempt the “neighborhood schools” proposed by Senate Bill 636 from the “teacher tenure” law provisions that make it difficult or impossible to pay Michigan public school teachers on the basis of merit, rather than years on the job, and which also make it very difficult to dismiss teachers.
- Referred to the Senate Education Committee on June 11, 2009.
- Reported in the Senate on September 9, 2009, with the recommendation that the bill pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on December 2, 2009, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that simply allows teachers to be fired for "consistent ineffectiveness". The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on December 2, 2009.
- Referred to the Senate Education Committee on June 11, 2009.
- Failed 17 to 18 in the Senate on December 2, 2009, to revise the “teacher tenure” law to allow a teacher to be fired or demoted for consistent ineffectiveness. Under current law it is very difficult or impossible to fire a teacher.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Moved to reconsider by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey (R) on December 3, 2009, the vote by which the bill was defeated. Passed by voice vote in the Senate on December 3, 2009.
- Received in the Senate on December 3, 2009.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Randy Richardville (R) on December 3, 2009, to establish that the state Superintendent of Public Instruction would create the definition of "consistently ineffective" in teaching, and the state Board of Education would have to approve this. The already included a provision requiring the definition to be based on "objective criteria". The amendment passed by voice vote in the Senate on December 3, 2009.
- Failed 19 to 13 in the Senate on December 3, 2009, to allow a teacher to be fired or demoted for consistent ineffectiveness. Under current law it is very difficult or impossible to fire a teacher.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Moved to reconsider by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey (R) on December 3, 2009, to reconsider the vote by which the bill was defeated. The motion passed by voice vote in the Senate on December 3, 2009.
- Received in the Senate on December 3, 2009.
- Passed 20 to 13 in the Senate on December 3, 2009, to revise the “teacher tenure” law to allow a teacher to be fired or demoted for consistent ineffectiveness, as defined by the state Superintendent of Public Instruction. Under current law it is very difficult or impossible to fire a teacher.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on December 3, 2009.
- Referred to the Senate Education Committee on December 3, 2009.
Most Recent Comments
1) Re: 2009 Senate Bill 638 (Authorize “neighborhood schools” ) by Sundodgg on September 12, 2011I am shocked and amazed that our legislators approve of allowing sub-standard teachers to exist in our schools, much less promote them. Then you wonder why charter schools are so in demand! The quality of education in our public schools is awful. We are graduating un-educated bodies who are for the most part unable to read, write, or count, and have little to no concept of our history or our laws. What does it take to wake up our legislators?
Reply
I think that is an interesting point, it made me think a bit. Thanks for
sparking my thinking cap. Sometimes I get so much in a rut that I just
feel like a record. hates off . Hardwood Pellets
Reply
"Teacher security" is the primarly problem. We have both young and old teachers who have gained tenure status and are no longer interested in their own professional development or the entire improvement of a school system. They just want to close the door, "teach" and not be held accountable. They refuse to use research based instructional techniques or even develop common grading or behavioral expecations as their peers. I (as a teacher) have sat back and watched teachers be placed on "growth plans" by the principal, they go through the needed steps for one year and then revert back to their old habits of being inaffective and poor. The principal is left pulling his/her hair out because when it is all said and done, there is nothing they can do. The cost of removing a tenured teacher is so expensive that district simply can't afford it. The funny thing is, most teachers are outstanding, the union is actually weakening itself in the court of public opinion, by protecting the ineffective / poor teachers within its ranks. Tenure reform is badly needed!
Reply
View Full Conversation
