Tinian teachers and students need help

Teachers seem to face a continuous challenge to keep their jobs on Tinian. Are the expectations that high or are these teachers just that bad? Which is true? This is not the first time there have been concerns about the teacher turnover rate on Tinian and history is usually the best place to begin looking for the origins of the problem. If we look at the history of Tinian Jr. /High School the average turnover rate is more than six teachers per year. But let’s do the math: six teachers represents 31.6 percent of the workforce multiplied by three years equals a 94.8 percent turnover rate every three years. What does that say about teacher quality, structure, expectations, stability and improving the teacher workforce?

Structure, stability, standard expectations, quality and improvement depends on a stable workforce. But the turnover rate we are experiencing throughout the CNMI (60 percent plus every five years) has created a shuffle board of the teaching workforce. We can’t even identify a permanent set of “Master Teachers” or come close to having a stable workforce under the HQT requirement of NCLB. Oh, I forgot we don’t give teachers permanent contracts and maybe that’s why we can’t keep teachers.

There is something wrong on Tinian and I’m not going to take sides because I obviously don’t know all the facts. If these teachers are not HQT, then it’s obvious their days were numbered. But if they are HQTs, then someone needs to looking long, hard and deep into this matter before sending these teachers on their merry way. But it’s hard to ignore the pattern of teacher terminations at Tinian Jr/High Schools and considering the many comments I have gotten as the Teacher Rep over the years about the leadership, it’s time for the leadership to change their methodology or it’s time for them to go. I say this because I do know one thing for a fact: “The principal has refused to allow the teachers to use the NMI history textbook” and the reason given to me by teachers who no longer work there was “a feud with the author.” I’m sure the people of Tinian can authenticate this fact but more important is that the children on Tinian are being subjected to a sub-standard education in their own history, all because of a personal feud done dragged the kids into it. We call it insubordination which is cause for termination but I’ve been told she has the right last name and knows the right people. I even reported this behavior to the COE but she was given the latitude of “alternative resources” to meet the standards. But I’m still wondering how a required textbook by Board of Education policy can be so boldly refused the students. Wake up parents, the COE and the Board! Every Social Studies teacher in the CNMI will tell you that the NMI History textbook is the only complete resource on the history of the Marianas but the children on Tinian will never even see the book under the present leadership.

In defense of the Board, the Chairwoman is right to remain silent, especially when the Board may be forced to intervene in the matter. But the Board does have a fiduciary duty to look into what is clearly a policy violation. The COE seems to think the terminations are valid and personnel matters are not open for public discussion so we can only hope he is right. But I hope he will look at the history of Tinian’s teacher turnover rate, especially after it was already a concern of the last Board. He may also want to ask and answer the question as to why the turnover rate is not the same at the elementary, which should be very revealing, given both schools are operating under the same conditions. But these teachers deserve some kind of due process and not just a decision on something written by the principal that can’t be substantiated.
[B] Ambrose M. Bennett
[/B][I]Kagman, Saipan[/I]