The New Republic

" But, if the best teachers are mixed in among those of all experience levels, a quality-based process could at once keep more people on a district's payroll and boost the excellence of its teaching force."

And what "quality-based process" would this be? I'm not saying none could ever work, but these are always imprecise and prone to error.

- rozenson

April 22, 2009 at 6:21pm

.....education finance expert Marguerite Roza....

george:

How does one become an "education finance expert"?

Are such "experts" free of the political bias that might make an expert who happens to be a democrat [liberal] see education finanace wholely at odds with an expert who happens to be a Republican [conservative]?

And how do these experts factor in the demographic variables that swirl in and out and around particular school districts? Factors like poverty, neighborhood blight, family dysfunction, racism, classism, gangs, inadequate government resources etc.

Or is all this immaterial to the advice and "plans" they give? Indeed, in a "ideal world" all children in America would be educated as, say, the Obama children are at Sidwell. In the real world however that is a fairy tale, isn't it?

I noticed, for example, that Seyward Darby barely touches on this at all. So, surely, that makes him an expert on school financing.

george walton

- iambiguous

April 22, 2009 at 7:51pm

Seyward you are way off. Seniority allows teachers to put down long term roots in a community, allows them to have families, homes, etc. Take away job security and what do you have? A profession that exists at the whim of the yearly school budget board meetings. You are proposing to knock out one of the essential legs why many people go into teaching, which is security. Or do you imagine that every teacher just loves to deal with snot nosed brats and indifferent or obnoxious parents? As Rozenson points out, throwing in a whole new selection process will make it even worse. Young, quality teachers are far more mobile and flexible, and the best ones will find other employ, if not they are better equipped to weather this economic downturn. This is definitely being penny wise pound foolish, there simply is not enough great teachers around, and making the outlook for the job more difficult for the average teachers will mean there will be a serious teacher shortage down the road. Without tenure, I would not do what I do. I love teaching, but I love my family more. Take away tenure and it is better to take my chances in business and make more money. But if it were up to you I would have to look over my shoulder at some bright eyed, enthusiastic and popular 25 year old who is able to devote 20 hours a day to his work, and in 10 years time he would have to do the same.

- blackton

April 22, 2009 at 8:05pm

My school district sent out 17 Lay-Off notices last week to meet the April 30 Deadline.  Some will get a reprieve as others retire and classes balance.

But we know a few of the younger ones.  Good teachers with energy and enthusiasm.  Unfortunately some of the older ones that aren't so good continue on.  Out of about 600 teachers, having 15 get laid off by performance is not too bad.

Our Lay-Offs at work were not by Seniority.  I would love that job security.

But the Teacher Union wins.  Seniority rules, and Principals have less authority.

In my neighborhood it's not too bad.  In Detroit, that's another story.

- CRS9TNR

April 22, 2009 at 9:15pm

Blackton's right.  Job security is a form of compensation, and cutting the compensation of all teachers is no way to improve teacher quality.  And where's a 58-year-old laid-off teacher going to find another job?

- liebig

April 23, 2009 at 12:45am

@Blackton

People go into teaching for job security? Really? If there's a shortage of great teachers around, it might be because offering seniority-based job security in lieu of other forms of compensation offers little incentive for people who have no seniority to become teachers.

And I think a lot of the fears older teachers have are overstated. I'm sure there's some relationship between age and teaching quality but (1) it may not always be in the direction you think it goes (experience may trump youthful energy) and (2) there may be other independent factors that explain teaching quality far more than age (e.g. the ability to resist wasting half of a math class on a diatribe against the powers that be).

@liebig

"cutting the compensation of all teachers is no way to improve teacher quality"

But the suggestion is not cut the compensation of ALL teachers -- only the waker ones.

"where's a 58-year-old laid-off teacher going to find another job?"

I dunno. Why don't you ask the 58-year-old laid-off engineer? Why are we obligated to protect aging teachers but not the aging workers of other fields?

- fong_ac

April 23, 2009 at 3:13am

Seyward is right on.  

Blackton has some points, but this discussion is really about trade-offs.  Blackton's error is the implicit assumption that senior teachers would particularly vulnerable.  I don't see it, if for no other reason than the fact that Districs and Superintendents don't like to fire teachers.  Here in Iowa it's an arduous and painful process.  However, I would expect a poorly performing senior teacher to be axed long before a poorly performing junior teacher, if for no other reason than the salary difference.

Seyward is particularly correct to note two things about layoffs under a seniority system: 1) the layoffs go far deeper than they otherwise would because of the vast compensation differences between senior and junior teachers, and 2) such layoffs are no respecter of quality.  

- phatkarp

April 23, 2009 at 9:55am

fong_ac, people stay in teaching for job security. The burnout rate for teachers is already high. Obviously you have never taught in an inner city school, at a certain point there is an exchange of loyalty, you stick it out here and we will stick with you. I know that experience trumps energy. I am a better teacher now than 10 years ago, but I also know I was more popular ten years ago. I was closer to their age so they related better to me, I was more interested in their liking me than in their learning, etc. and from the perspective of the school, they can choose between popular young, low paid teachers or expensive, older ones. The cost sensitive solution is to fire 2 olders ones and keep 3 younger ones. But when the economy improves the 2 older ones will likely be gone forever, why would they risk getting burned. And of the 3 younger ones, one might burn out, another find a better job elsewhere, then the school will be worse off.

Teaching is not like any other field. They are not making widgets. You can't just interchange teachers like workers on an assembly line. A school is an institution and it needs institutional memory, for the students sake. My father was a Middle School principal, the only public middle school in town. As I grew up I everywhere I went people knew him.They were either former students, had children that were students, etc. Such things represents continuity and stability. Why throw that away for short term economic benefit? Do you really want to take that status away and treat education as a business?

There would be zero reason for any teacher to remain at a school, instead it would be better for them to shop themselves out to the highest bidders. That is fine for engineers, not for students.

- blackton

April 23, 2009 at 10:26am

phatkarp, again seniority protection is a tonic against teacher burnout. You seem to be viewing this from the perspective of a typical, white suburban school district. That won't be the problem. There will always be teachers available for those jobs. It is in the inner city or poor districts that playing shortsighted economics makes no sense. Damn, the real world is not the Dead Poets Society. Lets just stop pretending it is. Teaching is hard, draining work. I can not imagine teaching lower than University level. And I sure as hell would never go to a place like Paterson, NJ, Imagine going into a high school classroom where there is always a chance of some confrontation with a student, one that could turn violent. Not many engineers have to worry about that. Beyond that, every word, every gesture you make has to be guarded lest it be misinterpreted. It is a minefield. A teacher with 20 years experience knows how to navigate that minefield. But most school boards don't fully understand that. Let's stop pretending that they do.

Essentially, you are advocating scrapping tenure, and turning teaching into a year by year contract job. Of course, that will not be accepted. If you are not then this whole argument is moot. If tenure holds, then I have zero problem with instituting policies to remove terrible teachers, even if they have tenure, but these already exist.

- blackton

April 23, 2009 at 10:53am

Last thing, I also love how people who have never taught or been in education fancy themselves to be education experts, I never see them writing about how to run hospitals, or how to run printing companies, but schools, well everyone has an opinion since, you know, they went to a school when they were little.

Sorry for the snark, but you have to appreciate that teachers might feel a little defensive. If Seyward has 30 years experience as a teacher, then administrator, well then I will treat any opinions with a lot more respect. I am sorry, but education does not come down to simple questions and answers. Let us look at what is best for the educational community long term

- blackton

April 23, 2009 at 11:04am

Nick Sobotka: Seniority sucks.

La La: If you ain't senior.

These unions are a gerentocracy.  If they were really all about solidarity, they'd have a lottery for layoffs.

- prnoonan

April 23, 2009 at 12:20pm

I don't disagree that senority/experience are important to the quality of teachers and tenure plays a vital role for not just long term continuity but a valuable safeguard from becoming a victim in the often gruesome battles over things like policy or first amendment rights. And, of course, there are personality and popularity issues just to make it extra complicated.

But these jobs, especially at the college level, are about more than showing up to work every day, putting on a good face for the students, and mollifying parents. What about the principle whose school has a high faculty turnover rate, where the exit interviews consistently identify this principle as the primary factor for leaving? What about the administrator who obviously stopped caring about holding up their end of the tenure bargain years ago, running around pissing on everyone's parade and alienating himself personally and professionally from every other department in the institution? There is no excuse for retaining these people, except that the rules of tenure stipulate that they must repeatedly, greviously violate the code of conduct and/or commit and be found guilty of major felonies before termination is even a consideration; yes, they are completing some minimal amount of actual work and fulfilling some minimal amount of responsibility associated with their positions, but is it really that hard to find people who can draw up a budget or supervise a small department?

I agree that, all things being equal, seniority should have a seat at the table when deciding how to trim employment levels. But all things are not always equal in regards to employees of academic institutions. While it is impossible to evaluate how well an employee is performing, especially in relation to any other employee, it is almost insanely easy to understand if they're performing well enough. Seniority may be a good predictor of quality in an educator, because nothing trumps old-fashioned years of experience, but it is no guarantee, especially in cases where a teacher either burns out too far, or simply put on their Dr Jekyl face until they received their tenure, then reverted to their more natural Mr Hyde. And there are measurable valuations which can be employeed to guage an employees fitness for continuing employment that don't involve the criminal justice system or the code of conduct.

And even though only perhaps .5%, or .25%, or .1% of employees in academic institutions may qualify for dismissal in this regard, that is no excuse to just stick to seniority as the sole evaluation criteria when cutting back on staffing levels.

I am fortunate in that I now work for a hospital system which values it employees and employs an unofficial tenure system; of 10,000+ employees there has been one actual firing, to my knowledge, over the last 4 years and that was for destroying company property while having a temper tantrum AND refusing to apologize for the incident (it is strongly suspected that this was intentional, as later work has revealed the employee's work to have been extreme substandard). But they've recently had 3 rounds of layoffs, and employed some excellent strategies every time. Round 1 saw the elimination of non-essential jobs; largely new positions and projects surrounding efforts to expand the company's services and operations. Round 2 included any departments with extra personell, not having to work overtime to complete workloads, starting with a review of HR files for problematic employees. Round 3 actually included 25% paycuts to execute employees, and a reduction of benefits, eliminating most middle management positions, as well as cutting one employee, typically the least essential or productive, from each department/workgroup.

The point is that it is perfectly possible to embrace a tenure system and eliminate jobs on a basis other than seniority, as well as alternatives to actually eliminating jobs; it requires preparation and effort and some hard choices, but it can be done and it can be effective.

- GSpinks

April 23, 2009 at 12:59pm

blackton -

While I understand your larger point, I disagree that "Teaching is not like any other field. They are not making widgets."  So the rest of us are?  Engineering is not an assembly line, and engineers are not interchangeable.  There is nothing in the world as useless as an engineer right out of school; I can say that for certain, having been one.  An engineer needs at least five years of experience to be worth his salary, at least two years at a particular job before he is fully knowledgeable about it, but there's no tenure for us.  There is, however, a basic assumption that the company has an investment in you that they would not like to relinquish, and the longer your time with them, the more likely they are to consider that when deciding whom to eliminate.  But it is not the guarantee of job safety, regardless of comparative performance, that tenure provides.

Why shouldn't schools be the same way?  Maybe it is different at universities, but I cannot think that middle-school administrators evaluate a teacher based on his popularity among the pre-teens.  Surely, even without tenure, they would consider how a teacher's experience, both in general and particularly with the practices at that school, contribute to a quality education for their students.  But if that experience is not evidenced by teaching quality, then of what use is it?  

I agree with rozenson that "quality-based processes" can be hard to implement fairly, and probably they should not be used on such short notice for the current layoffs.  But they need to be in place for future ones.  I know you say we already have procedures to eliminate under-performing teachers, but I disagree - what we have are procedures to eliminate really, really crappy teachers.  In many districts, they are long, arduous, and not worth exercising except for the worst cases.  Again, it is only teachers who get this consideration.  If, as you say, this is a form of compensation, it is a poor one, rewarding tenaciousness but not necessarily success.  I would sooner see teachers get a little less job security and commensurate wage increases.

As to why everyone feels entitled to talk about the schools, I ought to point out that all of us on this site feel perfectly entitled to point out the failings of Senators, Secretaries, and the President.  Few of us have held these posts, especially the last, which is generally the worst criticized.

- dhauck

April 23, 2009 at 1:13pm

blackie- We talk about health care reform here ALL THE TIME.  Oh, and finance.  And national security.  People manage to have opinions on all three things without being doctoraccountantdiplomats.  Most people have at least been to school, which is more experience than they have when talking about AIG or Pakistan.

So yeah, I've never been a teacher, but I sure enough did attend some inner city schools.  Burn out is indeed an issue, but I don't see how the solution to that problem is keeping all the burned out teachers.  I went to one of the better public DC high schools, and I'd still say at least 50% of the teachers didn't belong anywhere near a classroom.  And it wasn't the young ones; it was the people who had been around for 30 years and had lost all motivation to do a good job but couldn't be gotten rid of.  

I don't blame any teacher for burning out.  It's rough job.  Man, I sure wouldn't want to have my teenage self for a student.  But keeping those teachers around because they have seniority isn't helping anyone.

- ratnerstar

April 23, 2009 at 1:16pm

While I have sympathy with blackie's views, it can't be that school systems can't figure out a way to evaluate teachers and make judgments on their abilities.  No, it will not be a perfect system, but then there are none.

The Army has an Officer Evaluation System which is also not perfect, but it makes judgments constantly about who should be promoted and who should find other work.  Why is education different?

- butchie b

April 23, 2009 at 3:06pm

ratty, there is a big difference between our advocating everyone have health care, and voting for politicians who will fund it, then talking about the hiring, firing, and evaluation policies of major hospitals. Most of the people who talk very knowledgeably about finance are in finance, and are the ones who people pay most attention to. As to our opinions about FP. It is just that, nothing will come of it. But people read this then they can vote for school board members who will advocate the exact same thing. I have no problems with the existence of school boards, but lets face it, the only qualification to be on a school board is being voted onto it. You take away Union power, then it will be the school board and the administration who will call the shots.

And let's face it, do we really want school boards to have even more power? It takes multi-million dollar lawsuits to keep Creationism out of schools as it is. So if you read this, think yeah get rid of tenure, show those teacher bastards a thing or two, then yes, this does matter.

dhauck, I would love it if engineers had tenure, but since most work for profit making businesses it is impossible. However there is always Civil Service. The pay is much less but the security is there. I have zero problem with that. I am sure in the Post Office, the County Clerks office, etc. right down the line Seniority is there. Why no articles about changing the whole Civil Service structure. Lets get a bunch of 20 year olds to do everything and save big bucks. Let's make all Civil Service jobs as sucky as Private Sector jobs. Equality of misery. Let's take away what little middle class we still have left to save money so we can give tax breaks to the rich.

Where will this end? Public sector jobs trade pay for security. That is now a bad thing. In the spirit of Capitalism no one should have either except the people who run the things.

- blackton

April 23, 2009 at 3:06pm

"As to our opinions about FP. It is just that, nothing will come of it."

Tell that to Chas Freeman!

Anyway, sure, opinions are like assholes, right?  Everyone has one, and all of them stink.  And most of them have been mouthed by boneill at one point or another.  But while getting closer to a subject does provide you with more detailed information, you also risk getting a little too close and losing perspective.  There are guys at SAIC who know more about the Future Combat System than anyone on the planet, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily the best people to evaluate the program.

Unions are great things, but their interests  (namely, the welfare of teachers; this is not a criticism) which don't always align with the public interest.  That's why you need to balance their power against other institutions.  And frankly, I don't see the teachers unions on the front lines against creationism so much as the ACLU, etc.

- ratnerstar

April 23, 2009 at 3:26pm

GSpinks, the principal is your "pal."  I learned that from a teacher.

Anyway, as I've said before, I'm pretty disgusted by today's exclusive and obsessive focus on teachers and teacher unions when it comes to education.  Despite the fact that tenure has been around for something like a hundred years, only recently have teachers become wildly unpopular scapegoats for problems that *obviously* have such a complex set of social causes outside the classroom that to blather on about "teacher accountability" or to plead, Maude-Flanders-esque, that we remember the children and call that "education reform," is ignorant or stupid or both.

- jhildner

April 23, 2009 at 5:23pm

How is the issue handled in the private schools?

- teplukhin2you

April 23, 2009 at 5:28pm

I am not denying there can be cutbacks, I am in favor of merit pay, what other teachers make is not business of mine, and I think starting teachers should be paid more and seniority less. I am also in favor of getting rid of the Dept. of Education, vouchers, charter schools, etc. Put it all on the table, lets discuss it all, fine. I also know because I have an opinion it is not necessarily valid, it should be subject to scrutiny. My only point is that Seniority is too valuable to the profession, and getting rid of it will make things worse, and to do it as a cost saving measure is nuts. Get rid of the athletic departments, have school year round and consolidate schools, fine. Break the teachers union? Uhhhhh. noooo.

- blackton

April 23, 2009 at 6:00pm

I am not denying there can be cutbacks, I am in favor of merit pay, what other teachers make is not business of mine, and I think starting teachers should be paid more and seniority less. I am also in favor of getting rid of the Dept. of Education, vouchers, charter schools, etc. Put it all on the table, lets discuss it all, fine. I also know because I have an opinion it is not necessarily valid, it should be subject to scrutiny. My only point is that Seniority is too valuable to the profession, and getting rid of it will make things worse, and to do it as a cost saving measure is nuts. Get rid of the athletic departments, have school year round and consolidate schools, fine. Break the teachers union? Uhhhhh. noooo.

- blackton

April 23, 2009 at 6:03pm

blackton -

FP - Freaky People?  Fuckin' Politicians?  Falafel Pizza?  Fellatio Party? (you're right, that probably never will happen, not to me, anyway.)  Fantastic Pakistanis?  Foer's Pulitzer?  (well, maybe)

- dhauck

April 23, 2009 at 8:45pm

dhuack, FP is foreign policy, but you probably knew that and am busting my chops.

- blackton

April 23, 2009 at 9:05pm

yup

- dhauck

April 24, 2009 at 7:07am