NYC Schools Chancellor Tries to Eliminate Seniority Rules as He Plans Layoffs:

[amborin]

Last Teacher In, First Out? City Has Another Idea

snip

....Mr. Klein and his counterparts around the country say that the rules, which require that the most recently hired teachers be the first to lose their jobs, are anachronistic. In an era of accountability, they say, the rules will upend their efforts of the last few years to recruit new teachers, improve teacher performance and reward those who do best.

“Nobody I’ve talked to thinks seniority is a rational way to go,” Mr. Klein said. “Obviously there are some senior teachers who are extraordinary. You recruit young talent you think is good for the future, and to just get rid of that by the numbers seems to me to be a nonsensical approach.”

This month city officials persuaded lawmakers in Albany to introduce a bill that would allow the city to decide which teachers to let go, although its chances of passing are slim. Similar legislation in California, where thousands of young teachers have received letters saying they could be out of work, moved forward last week, backed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Arizona abolished seniority rules last year, and this month its Legislature banned the use of seniority if teachers are rehired.

Unions argue that administrators want to do away with seniority protections so they can get rid of older teachers, who are more expensive.
They say that without seniority safeguards, principals could act on personal grudges, and that while keeping the best teachers is a laudable goal, no one has figured out an accurate way to determine who those teachers are.

“There is no good way to lay people off,” said Randi Weingarten, the former leader of the city’s teachers’ union, who is now the president of the American Federation of Teachers. “But to be opportunistic and try to rush something through without knowing if there’s some degree of objectivity and a comprehensive and valid evaluation system is appalling.”
Indeed, even if school districts switched to performance-based layoffs, younger teachers could still face big losses.

Several studies have shown that teachers just beginning their careers are more likely to struggle than more experienced instructors. And a New York Times analysis of the city’s own reports on teacher effectiveness suggest that teachers do best after being in the classroom for at least 5 years, though they tend to level off after 10 years.
“You want to keep a rookie who looks good relative to other rookies, evn if it’s not that great relative to all other teachers, because they are going to turn into a really good teacher,” said Douglas O. Staiger, an economics professor at Dartmouth who has worked with the city on teacher quality studies. “The question is: Are our current methods good enough at figuring out who those teachers are? I’m not sure where you draw the line on that.”

Mr. Klein frequently cites the teachers’ contract in Washington, D.C., as a model. Last year, when the Washington schools chancellor, Michelle A. Rhee, laid off nearly 300 teachers, she was not bound by seniority.

snip

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/education/25seniority.html?hpw

[Nikki Stone1]

1. K&R

.

[Smarmie Doofus]

2. Hmmmm. Wouldn't outstanding young teachers be more....

...likely to hang in there under difficult, sometimes impossible circumstances if they were rewarded monetarily and by the prospect of job security ?

Don't outstanding young teachers desire to raise a family and don't they have to concern themselves with the question of how they are going to be able to do that ( i.e. pay a mortgage, save for kids' college, etc ) 10, 15 yrs down the road?

Seems to me Klein, Bloomberg, et al would be taken more seriously if they just flat-out acknowledged that they prefer new teachers to senior teachers because they prefer cheap teachers to expensive teachers.

The debate could then move along to the next level. This doubletalk about "accountability" when they really mean "cost savings" is getting thin and beyond tedious.

Everyone knows what they really mean; except apparently the NY Times editorial board.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. It looks like the matter of seniority is finally coming to a head in education

Its about time. I am a heretic on this issue both here and in the union, but its long overdue.

I have argued against a production line mentality for teachers if they want to be considered professionals. Competency and effectiveness need to be considered when evaluating professionals for compensation and retention. It happens just about everywhere else, there is no reason primary and secondary teachers should be exempt. If the NEA and others were to get out ahead of this, ways could be found to avoid the concerns being voiced. The absolute denial rear guard action will prove deleterious in the end. It will be forced upon teachers and the districts will pretty well dictate the terms unless we develop and substantiate an approach of our own.

There is a form of class envy if not warfare building against state and local civil servants, including teachers in CA and elsewhere. The media is broadcasting claims of massive pensions and growth of government. Low to no cost benefits and double dipping are all producing genuine resentment from working people. If those pensions and compensation plans are going to have a chance in hell of surviving, we are going to have to demonstrate that they are equitable for the *professionals* being employed. Seniority based compensation and retention are not hallmarks of a professional system.

If we do not get out front of this, we will be steamrolled. All the union solidarity in the nation is not going to stop it. That is my opinion, YMMV.

Note: Though I am teaching exclusively at the university level theses days, I maintain my credentials and union memberships. Upon our returning to CA, my wife taught at the secondary level until she died.

[anigbrowl]

4. agreed 100%

Seniority alone is a terrible system that rewards those who are best at departmemtal politics.

[amborin]

5. huh? just the opposite; seniority is based on yrs worked; it's the merit-based systems that smack o

of politics

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Everybody else,. including the Federal Gov, makes merit systems work

Why can it work in elementary and secondary education?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. There is another senority issue brewing, at least in CA

Seniority allows you to bump less senior teachers out of desirable schools. Over time this has lead to the senior teachers working in the newer/better area/better off/more desirable schools and the schools in the poverty stricken areas, which arguably have the most need for the experienced teachers, getting the noobs. Several larger districts are afraid of lawsuits based on unequal educational opportunities. Its effectively seniority vs student needs. Its also going to be a hard thing work under the current system.

[amborin]

8. then you dislike Arne Duncan's plan to replace exp'd teachers w/ new recruits in needier schools

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. I brought up most needy schools with the newest teachers issue since its a hot one locally

I have really mixed feelings on it.

New teachers need mentoring and a chance to get grounded in the profession. Their turnover rate is tremendous. A hard case school with many/most of the faculty and staff having less than 5 years experience is not the place to get that support.

I understand teachers wanting to work in a more successful/less stressing environment. Having a way to know you will get to make that kind of choice in the long run is important. Having a voice in where you will be teaching also drives other things in teachers' lives including where to by a home etc.

Finally, new teachers are clearly not prepared to teach in the more challenging environments of the inner city. Those are the most at risk children, should they not get the best teachers?

Then add the seniority issues as defined in most contracts WRT to bumping rights, and the issue gets even worse.

This is a hard one, since this is the kind of thing I think seniority should count for. Yet the the hard case schools with the most pressing needs will go unsupported if things go on as they have. Its a hard case all the way around.

[Smarmie Doofus]

14. NYC ended seniority transfers 5 years ago;

yet the " failing schools" that Bloomberg and Klein are closing down are overwhelmingly "in the more challenging environments of the inner city" with which you are concerned.

Therefore: if the DOE is trying to get senior teachers to work with kids in low-income schools they are going about it the hard way. If, however, they are trying to remove expensive labor and replace it with cheap labor ... they are operating with efficiency.

I really think you are barking up the wrong tree.

[roody]

9. Teachers cannot bump others in my NCal school district.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. That seems to be a district by district thing

Sometimes there is an application process and the principal gets a vote if not the actual choice.

Put yourself in the principal's chair. Choice between a well regarded mid to senior teacher or a noob. No economic issues attached to the choice since that is handled at the district level. Your success depends on students meeting certain test thresholds. Who would you go with?

[amborin]

12. "seniority vs student needs"

think you need to research this some more;

if a teacher wants to transfer to a paricular school, he/she can't bump someone out to do so; it's only if that school subsequently has a reduction in staff that the more senior teacher is retained over the one with fewer yrs exp; then the newer one is bumped.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Varies by district

In vast majority of them, when there is an opening, senior teachers get first choice in a variety of ways. Additionally, if there is a vacancy at another campus, a teacher regardless of seniority normally can not be forced to move to it. Over time the senior teachers are in school of their own choosing, often not most needy ones.

[mrmpa]

15. Why Teacher Unions were founded

Some of the reasons Unions moved into the classroom, was because school boards and school administrators often fired older teachers, salaries were often different for teachers with the same years of experience (read women made less than men)and they often did whatever they wanted.

What teachers fought against within the past 50 years is again rearing its ugly head and I want my Union (NEA) to fight as hard as they did in the beginning.