Michelle Rhee: End "Last in, first out" teacher layoffs

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/23/rhee.layoff.policy/index.html?hpt=C2

A wave of layoffs will likely happen this summer, and my group, StudentsFirst.org, calculates that at least 160,000 teachers are at risk of losing their jobs. What makes this even tougher on kids is that the majority of the country's states and school districts conduct layoffs using an antiquated policy referred to as "last in, first out." The policy mandates that the last teachers hired are the first teachers fired, regardless of how good they are. As it stands now, teachers' impact on students plays absolutely no role in these decisions.

In difficult times like this, it may be easier to turn a blind eye to the compelling connection between teachers and our future long-term prosperity. We cannot do this to our kids. If we want to come out on the other side of this crisis with public education stronger, we have to do everything possible to keep our best teachers in the classroom. Last in, first out policies actively work against this goal. Here's why:

First, research indicates that when districts conduct seniority-based layoffs, we end up firing some of our most highly effective educators. These are the inspiring and powerful teachers that students remember for the rest of their lives, and our nation will lose more of them with every such layoff.

Second, last in, first out policies increase the number of teachers that districts have to lay off. Because junior teachers make less money, schools will lose more teachers and more jobs as long as these policies are permitted by law.

And finally, last in, first out disproportionately hurts the highest-need schools. These schools have larger numbers of new teachers, who are the first to lose their jobs in a layoff. High-income areas have more stable systems and fewer new teachers, and they are less impacted by budget cuts. Students who live in these poor areas can't afford to lose their best teachers on top of those cuts. Yet last in, first out will drain the school systems of their best educators in the neighborhoods that need them the most.



more at the link

We should not be laying off ANY teachers.

What is our ranking in education? Trailing the industrialized world? What are the average class sizes? How many special needs kids? How many disadvantaged?

Where do we train the workers of tomorrow? We need more investment in education, not less.

What we need less of is consultants and companies like Neil Bush's Ignite! and his privatization scheme, Bill Gates takeover of public schools, quasi-religious charter schools dipping their fingers into education dollars.

I am so sick of hearing people crap on public education. If education is so unimportant in your worldview and scheme of things, why don't you just eliminate it entirely? Homeschool or pay out of your own pocket. Cut the boondoggle to profiteers.

For example:

http://www.clickondetroit.com/education/22861844/detail.html

The Detroit Public Schools Financial Manager has laid out a $1 billion plan to close 44 schools plus one administration building. The 44 buildings will be closed by June, and another 13 by 2012, including two of the city's most established high schools.

Bobb said his five-year master facilities plan will be put into place between 2010-2015. Some buildings will be renovated and some will be consolidated into smaller and newer buildings and some will be demolished as the district prepares for a projected enrollment drop of about 30,000 students.

Bobb said Wednesday that there are currently 50,000 vacant seats in the schools and the number will continue to increase as the birth rate in the city drops.

Pre-kindergarten through 12th grade enrollment has decreased from about 164,500 in 2002-03 to 87,700 for the current school year, according to district data. Enrollment is projected to dip to 56,500 in 2014-15.

Kindergarten enrollment declined from 16,046 in 1994 to 6,039 last year. About 22,250 students currently are in high school, Bobb said Wednesday. That number is projected to dip to 11,460 within five years.

The city's population also continues to drop with each U.S. Census and after the 2010 count it's projected to dip far below 900,000.



Are you saying no teachers in Detroit should be laid off, even though enrollment is down by nearly 100,000 students?

end of transmission

But between the $219 million deficit in the public school budget in Detroit and the exodus of the tax base some positions have to be cut. I would think they could get by without cutting so many teachers, but to say no teachers should ever be laid off, which is what the person said who I initially replied to, is not a position that's grounded in reality.

I think poor, disadvantaged, distressed, hungry kids need every resource, not fewer and fewer. This is America, not Somalia. We don't do half enough to meet the fucking needs of the young people of this country.

When you can tell me we have provided enough adult mentors, counselors, teachers to help kids see they are a valued investment in America's future, when you can convince me that they have been given every enrichment opportunity possible, that we've invested in their talents whatever they may be from a young age, that we have provided for their health and basic necessities like food and shelter, their emotional needs, then come and talk to me about cutting the number of educators needed.

In short, kids and their overworked parents need to create a better world to live in than the ruins of a major urban city slowly watching the lights go out. Man that makes me feel proud of my exceptionalism. We are exceptional at fooling ourselves, I guess.

I think the rich should pay for this investment in the flesh and blood of America as the price of doing business in this country. They invest in our people if they expect to profit off us. Call it the Luxury Tax. A two-way atreet, not some burned out dead end.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

without comment.

I agree with ending "last hired, first fired" in all jobs, not just teaching. The fact that someone has been at a particular job for 5 years does not automatically make them a better employee than someone who has been at the same job for 2 years.

and I believe in the concept of seniority - better than firing all the 50 year old workers just because someone fresh out of college will do it for half the wage.

...the argument:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/michelle-rhee/rhees-new-initiative-not-all-a.html?wprss=answer-sheet


And the adjoining thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x492640