Teachers surveyed agree: end ‘quality-blind’ layoffs
Civil rights attorneys aren’t the only ones opposed to a teacher layoff system based strictly on seniority. Teachers themselves apparently aren’t crazy about it either.
“A Smarter Teacher Layoff System” – a report this month by The New Teacher Project – included a survey of 9,000 teachers in two unnamed urban districts. Seventy percent of teachers in one district and 77 percent of teachers in the other, including most of tenured teachers, said that factors other than just seniority should be considered in a layoff.
In both districts, teachers rated classroom management, teacher attendance and instructional performance based on evaluations, as more important factors than the number of years that a teacher has taught in the district or total years of teaching.
The survey, if it accurately reflects views of teachers in California and nationwide, calls into question the teachers’ unions staunch defense of the current system. Indeed, they may be out of touch with their own members. And with upward of 20,000 teachers in California due to get layoff notices by the end of the week and with Gov. Schwarzenegger calling for an end to seniority-based layoffs, now is time to deal squarely with the issue.
Last month, the ACLU of Southern California and other attorneys sued Los Angeles Unified and the state, charging that budget-cut inspired teacher layoffs violated rights of African-American and Hispanic children in three low-income, low-performing middle schools. The teaching ranks at those schools, made up largely of new teachers, had been decimated by layoffs.
The New Teacher Project report acknowledged the disproportionate effects of layoffs on the most vulnerable children in high-poverty schools. But it said that “quality-blind” layoffs “demean teachers by ignoring substantial differences in performance.” They result in many more teachers being laid off than would be necessary under different rules, because the district saves less money per lower-paid, new teacher. But most importantly, the report concluded, quality-blind layoffs hurt students “by depriving them of excellent teachers who are forced to leave simply because they have not taught as long as others.”
Last year, Arizona passed a law prohibiting the use of seniority in layoffs. Schwarzenegger said he would push for that this year in California. But a credible system doesn’t have to ban seniority – it should treat years teaching as just a minor factor. That’s what The New Teacher Project did in creating a hypothetical scorecard, with a point system using the criteria that teachers had recommended in the survey. Years in the district were given a 10 percent weight. An effective novice teacher could outscore an ineffective veteran but not an effective veteran.
While acknowledging that it will take time to put a quality evaluation system in place, the report concluded, “Districts cannot afford to wait, and they do not have to wait. They can implement quality-based layoff rules using information that is already available to make significant progress toward their goal of retaining their best teachers during layoffs.”






Although many are in agreement with the proposal to keep the proven quailty, high performing teachers; school district officials are bound by the ed code and negoitated contracts to use only seniority.
It will take action by state government to give professional school district administrators the tools they need to effectively run the school districts.
But wait; isn’t it the state governance people who created this disaster in the first place?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Thank you for addressing some of the issues in education. I have taught school for 33 years in a variety of settings and I would like to share some of my experiences and observations.
Teacher evaluation is so difficult because it teaching situations vary so much from school to school and the human factor is so hard to qualify. I was involved in a pilot teacher evaluation program in Georgia in 1977. That program failed because of its inherent bias and a lawsuit by the NAACP. I have been leary of teacher evaluation ever since then.
The three factors that are proposed for evaluating teachers; attendance, classroom management, and test scores are all directly related to the socio-economic level of the classroom students, in my opinion.
A teacher working in a classroom with students from secure, financially stable homes with parental support will of course have better management, better test scores and probably less stress-related health issues. If a teacher is confronted with fights in school, gang-related activity, homes in crisis, and hungry, impoverished students there will be less time to focus on standards and test-taking skills and more time managing behavior. This leads to stress and more attendance problems.
As for myself, I worked much harder to be a good teacher when I taught in a low-income school with poor test scores and challenging management issues as when I taught at a high-middle income school with few management problems .
I made many more home visits, bought many more supplies for students with my personal money, worked longer hours, gave up lunch time and weekends. Yet, behavior issues and low test scores were a constant concern. If I were evaluated in both settings using management and student performance (test scores), my evaluation would have been much better at the high-income school than at the low-income school. I don’t know about attendance as a factor in evaluation, but I do think that health issues are not something that teachers can control. If a teacher contracts H1N1 virus from a student and has to stay home for 10 days, that should not be a part of a teaching evaluation. Those are the type of subjective issues that make teaching evaluation so difficult.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity