
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SATURDAY, March 19, 1994                   TAG: 9403220015
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-7   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: By ROBLEY S. JONES
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

CHILDREN WILL BENEFIT FROM HIGHER TEACHER STANDARDS

I HAVE come to expect better from the Roanoke Times & World-News. Your March 10 editorial, ``Bowing to the teacher lobby,'' was based on a lack of information regarding House Bill 1056, the professional standards bill, and House Bill 1119, the reduction-in-force bill. Both bills are more complex in nature than your ``pop quiz'' would lead the reader to believe.

The first question: ``Should licensing and training standards for public employees be set by representatives of the public?'' You indicated that the Virginia Education Association would assign a failing grade to the reader answering in the affirmative. A more accurate way to pose the question would be to ask, ``Which of the following groups to be appointed by the governor would best determine what a teacher needs to know and be able to do?''

The Board of Education, made up of four attorneys, two bankers, one business representative and two retirees.

The Virginia Professional Standards Board, comprised of seven public school teachers, two college faculty members, four parents of school-aged children, two business representatives, one school board member, one school superintendent, one school personnel administrator and one superintendent of public instruction.

Clearly, both groups are representative of the public. Would you even dream of establishing a board to govern the medical profession that included no doctors?

Contrary to what you indicated, VEA would answer yes to your first question.

Your second question was: ``When an organization has to cut staff, should work performance be a factor in deciding whose job to eliminate?'' The reduction-in-force bill establishes in the code for the first time the difference between probationary teachers and continuing-contract teachers for the purpose of reduction in force. It makes it so that a teacher with more than three years of successful teaching, to whom the school system has chosen to grant a continuing contract, will have preference over new teachers who lack an established record of success. It doesn't address the comparative security of those with between four years' experience and an infinite level of experience. It prevents a system from using a reduction in force to fire teachers of long and exemplary service in favor of younger, inexperienced and cheaper teachers.

Teacher morale affects the quality of instruction, and as Del. William Mims of Leesburg said when debating the issue, ``If you have an unfair RIF policy, you're not promoting excellence in any employment, much less public employment.'' The RIF measure was a legislative reaction to unfair and nonexistent RIF policies in some Virginia counties.

Again, despite your assertion to the contrary, VEA would answer yes to your second question.

Regarding the constitutional question, Article VIII, Section 5 provides, ``The powers and duties of the Board of Education shall be as follows: (a) Subject to criteria and conditions as a General Assembly may prescribe ... '' The General Assembly has prescribed the creation of the Virginia Professional Standards Board for Education. The constitution doesn't specifically charge the Board of Education with the responsibility for licensing teachers.

Virginia's children will benefit from higher standards for the teaching profession and from elevated morale of teachers not subject to unfair reduction-in-force policies.

Robley S. Jones is president of the Virginia Education Association in Richmond.

by CNB