Teacher layoff by seniority or ability

[charrison]

It appears it is by seniority, so much for dedication for the children.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/03/AR2011030305414.html

IF, AS SEEMS likely, New York City must lay off thousands of teachers because of budget problems, Mayor Michael Bloomberg would like a say in who goes and who stays. Topping his list of those who should lose their jobs are 2,671 teachers who have been rated unsatisfactory over the past five years, 882 teachers who lack a teaching license, 291 whom an arbitrator found to be incompetent or guilty of malfeasance and 183 with records of excessive lateness or absenteeism. But state law enshrining the policy of "last in, first out" doesn't allow performance to be a factor and that means good teachers - possibly even great teachers - are likely to be forced out of the classroom.

It's an indefensible policy, and it is not unique to New York. In most school systems, seniority trumps other considerations in determining whether a teacher stays or goes. As the New Teacher Project found in a searing new report, it's actually illegal in 14 states to consider any factor other than a teacher's length of service when making layoff decisions. Only the District and three states - Arizona, Colorado and Oklahoma - require schools to consider job performance in making teacher layoff decisions.

Layoffs suck, but why keep the under performers if layoffs must happen.

 

[waggy]

well duh. we must protect teachers! no matter how bad they are!

 

[MotF Bane]

And then people wonder why the educational system is in so much trouble...

 

[nageov3t]

I've never been a big fan of last hired first fired.

I'd think that teachers nearing retirement should be encouraged to take an early retirement before laying off teachers who are just starting out.

my mom's been teaching for like 30-something years, she'd take a buyout in a heart beat.

 

[nick1985]

Where are our union cheerleaders to say this makes perfect sense?

 

[boomerang]

Where are our union cheerleaders to say this makes perfect sense?

They're not up yet.

 

[kage69]

I feel performance merit is a vastly more important consideration than seniority. If you are a good teacher, you don't have anything to worry about. If you are a bad teacher, you shouldn't be filling that job anyway, time to explore other careers. Sorry, but the kids are too important to suffer tutelage from those who aren't committed to the task.

 

[Red Dawn]

I feel performance merit is a vastly more important consideration than seniority. If you are a good teacher, you don't have anything to worry about. If you are a bad teacher, you shouldn't be filling that job anyway, time to explore other careers. Sorry, but the kids are too important to suffer tutelage from those who aren't committed to the task.

I bet that a good percentage of those teacher with bad reviews work at the inner city schools with high drop out rates. Kind of hard to get a good review when you have students that don't want to learn and parents who don't give a fuck.

Anyway root them out and reassign the good teachers there. Let's see how long their good reviews last as they are based on student performance.

 

[charrison]

I bet that a good percentage of those teacher with bad reviews work at the inner city schools with high drop out rates. Kind of hard to get a good review when you have students that don't want to learn and parents who don't give a fuck.

Anyway root them out and reassign the good teachers there. Let's see how long their good reviews last as they are based on student performance.

Right because working at a bad school will cause a teacher to lack a license, miss work or be incompetent.

 

[Red Dawn]

Right because working at a bad school will cause a teacher to lack a license, miss work or be incompetent.

The article isn't clear if those who were lacking a license, miss work or are incompetent are in addition to the 2,671 with unsatisfactory rating or part of them. Let's assume that they are part of the 2,671. That's still under a third and it doesn't state that all of the 2,761 will avoid being laid off due to senority.

Now I agree that those who lack a license, are totally incompentent and have excessive absences shouldn't be shielded from getting the axe due to their senority, it's pretty clear that they are bad employees. But the others who haven't those problems but have been given unsatisfactory ratings based on their students performance might actually be good teachers in a poor working enviroment where being successful is virtually impossible but for a very few gifted individuals, and those usually have movies made about them.

 

[kage69]

I bet that a good percentage of those teacher with bad reviews work at the inner city schools with high drop out rates. Kind of hard to get a good review when you have students that don't want to learn and parents who don't give a fuck.

Anyway root them out and reassign the good teachers there. Let's see how long their good reviews last as they are based on student performance.

Which is why I don't feel student reviews should be the only metric involved. Known too many immature, lazy brats who blame teachers for all their woes. Parents not giving a fuck is for another thread though, the meat of the issue is that tenure as a practice can be detrimental to the education of many. I hold the education of kids higher than I do the income of an ineffective educator.

 

[Ozoned]

It appears it is by seniority, so much for dedication for the children.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/03/AR2011030305414.html



Layoffs suck, but why keep the under performers if layoffs must happen.

Seniority eliminates liability. Keeps the lawyers away. Got to live in the society you have, not the one you want...

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Unions protect low performers in every trade in the US.

 

[Red Dawn]

Unions protect low performers in every trade in the US.

A lot of them yes but not all. I know the Carpenters Union didn't, at least in Nothern California where I was a member.

 

[Double Trouble]

Seniority should have nothing to do with it, but unions usually have a big problem with actual merit based performance evaluation and hiring/firing. The very core of the union is based on the idea of seniority. That might be OK in an environment where the work is repetitive and there's no "better performers", just people who do the job and those who don't (think assembly line), but it's a horrible idea everywhere else.

Unions protect low performers in every trade in the US.

That's one of the fundamental problems of unions: they make it very difficult to create and maintain an effective or efficient workforce, since it's often very difficult to get of people no matter how bad they are. Unions are a drag on any industry or business they are in, which is why they've all but died out everywhere except for 1) government jobs (no efficiency needed since there's no competition or expense issues to worry about), 2) education (same as with government jobs).

 

[Londo_Jowo]

A lot of them yes but not all. I know the Carpenters Union didn't, at least in Nothern California where I was a member.

Millwright/Carpenters unions seem to do better than unions for factory workers, guess it may have to do with the fact that peoples lives may depend on what millwright and carpenters do.

 

[Zebo]

It's always same in Union, last hired first fired. My local PD does same thing.

Economically it's worst choice but we always do everything ass backwards in this country. Pay people to sit at home while we put food on chinamans tables, pay twice as much for health care and only insure half, pay twice as much for education and worse results than our competitors, etc

 

[silverpig]

My wife is a teacher and got laid off a year ago. She just got her "congratulations, you've been teaching for 1 year full time and now are guaranteed full-time work in the district" letter, then 3 days later we heard on the radio that all teachers with less than 3 years experience were getting laid off.

She finished the year, then spent September as a substitute, before being hired back full time in October.

It sucks because there are some useless teachers out there who everyone knows are terrible and are scamming the system (it is a very small minority, but they do exist), yet they are protected while a young ambitious teacher with great reviews gets laid off.

 

[Patranus]

layoffs suck, but why keep the under performers if layoffs must happen.

u-n-i-o-n-s

 

[Double Trouble]

My wife is a teacher and got laid off a year ago. She just got her "congratulations, you've been teaching for 1 year full time and now are guaranteed full-time work in the district" letter, then 3 days later we heard on the radio that all teachers with less than 3 years experience were getting laid off.

She finished the year, then spent September as a substitute, before being hired back full time in October.

It sucks because there are some useless teachers out there who everyone knows are terrible and are scamming the system (it is a very small minority, but they do exist), yet they are protected while a young ambitious teacher with great reviews gets laid off.

As I said, seniority should have NOTHING to do with who gets laid off. Whenever there are layoffs there's a good opportunity to get rid of the dead wood so to speak, get rid of the low performers. Every measure of performance has its pro's and con's of course, but performance should always be more important than seniority. Seniority is worthless, and the insistence of using seniority for everything is one of the reasons unions are not only worthless, they are a detriment to society.

 

[glenn1]

Unions protect low performers in every trade in the US.

What better way to ensure those union dues keep coming than helping keep around those who wouldn't have a job apart from union rules? High performers have minimal need for a union to "help" them on the job.

 

[Patranus]

What better way to ensure those union dues keep coming than helping keep around those who wouldn't have a job apart from union rules? High performers have minimal need for a union to "help" them on the job.

It reminds me of how all of the unions are pro amnesty.

The union leaders want to increase their membership. What I want to know is what exactly current union members think will happen to them.

 

[jman19]

Garbage law.

 

[Patranus]

Garbage law.

Its not a law.

Its what the unions bargained for.

This is a perfect example of why public employees should only be allowed to collectively bargain on wages.

 

[comptr6]

Why can't it be both? The sooner we do away with teachers unions and the public school system the better as they are they are both liberal weapons used against American LIBERTY and PATRIOTISM.