Non-renewal - will it continue to mean the same thing?

The AJC reported today that Gwinnett, the largest school district in the state, appears to be using non-renewal to thin the teacher ranks rather than "lay-offs" per se.

I don't know how it works in other states, as I have only worked here. We have no union, just two lobbying bodies. Normally, if you really screw up (that is, cannot teach) you are given the option of resigning rather than getting a non-renewal of contract. When you apply for a teaching job, you are asked if you have ever not had your contract not renewed (non renewal) or if you have any ethical violations.

Most resign, rather than get non-renewal (read the beginning of this blog - and I am not alone in my school. Principals have an obscene amount of power over people's lives.

But, I started thinking today. If Gwinnett (and Cobb and DeKalb And Fulton - the BIG boys among the districts) start non-renewing to thin the ranks, then non-renewal loses its dark power. And that might be a good thing.


BTW, someone who signed themselves as "Georgia teachers" wrote:
Folks who are not teachers:

I understand you do not see the reason why 1-3 year teachers being “non-renewed” for “performance reasons” is such a big deal to a teacher. It basically ruins a person’s career.

Every single application I have ever filled out for a teaching position in this state and in others have all asked: “Have you ever been terminated from a contract or not renewed for a contract?” Once you check yes, your application is then deposited in the circular filing cabinet.

I understand the district’s need to lay teachers off, but be upfront and tell the teachers we just don’t have a job for you. Don’t put that blemish on their record.