LA Judge Rules Teacher Layoffs Should Not Be Based On Seniority

[proud2BlibKansan]

LOS ANGELES — A judge on Friday approved a sweeping overhaul of how teachers are laid off in what education reformers hail as a landmark decision to keep more effective instructors in the classroom, but unions denounce as a step toward dismantling tenure policies.

The decision was the outcome of a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California in February, charging that inner-city students' right to a quality education was being violated by a last-hired, first-fired layoff policy.

"This is a historic decision for the state of California," said John Deasy, deputy superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District. "The court stood and lifted up the voice of youth. That voice was loud and clear."

The ruling by Superior Court Judge William Highberger approved a settlement between the ACLU, the state and LAUSD in which the district agreed to shield 45 of its lowest performing schools from layoffs and to ensure that the redistribution of those layoffs will not be sent to a school that will experience greater than the district average of layoffs for that year.

more . . . http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/21/los-angeles-teacher-layoffs-seniority_n_812464.html?ir=Los+Angeles

[Hannah Bell]

1. fuck that bought-off asshole. "lifted up the voice of youth" = lol. lifted up the voice of

the war of all against all & class war.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. Experience equals incompetence

It's like a bizarre bad dream.

[msanthrope]

42. 'Experience' doesn't override the civil rights of the Plaintiffs. You have no 'right' in contract

to work a discrimination against the students who filed this lawsuit...

Economic interests must always fall in the face of civil rights discrimination.

You don't have an economic interest in discrimination....

[msanthrope]

35. Economic interests don't override civil rights. Property rights can't be used to discriminate

against kids.

If the teacher's union really thinks that an economic interest in senority overrides the civil rights of the students who brought the lawsuit, they are welcome to make that argument, further....

Links to the suit and settlement, here--

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/msanthrope/1

[Hannah Bell]

65. "the students who brought the lawsuit" = lol. "civil rights" = lol.

the deformers are decimating the ranks of black & hispanic teachers.

[msanthrope]

84. Yes--civil rights of students vs. the property/contract rights of teachers.

I'm amused you defend the latter.

[Hannah Bell]

116. i didn't realize "civil rights" = the right to have white "teach for america" grads

retained over experienced minority teachers.

[pipoman]

127. You do realize that the larger definition of "civil rights"

has nothing to do with race, no? It has to do with ALL rights associated with citizenship in the US.

[Hannah Bell]

137. your point?

[pipoman]

3. Seniority based

entitlements, regardless the profession, are the cause of complacency and mediocrity.

[glinda]

5. Seniority usually means you have had to prove yourself not like allowing any "plant" to

come in in order to change History, Science, etc.....

[Hannah Bell]

6. lol. no, concentrated wealth is the cause of security & mediocrity (for the rich)

& insecurity, fear & death (for the rest).

The US is sooooo innovative now, & was so mediocre circa 1945-1975 under that seniority rule thingy.

Let me break it to you, most people don't do their best work in an atmosphere of insecurity, competition & fear for their economic survival.

[dkf]

23. Wouldn't that mean communism would perform better than capitalism?

[Hannah Bell]

66. lol. depends on how you define "communism" & "perform"

[haele]

7. Really? So apparently, people are naturally lazy.

And the more confident and experienced someone is at a job, the quicker he or she will take advantage of the system and coast the rest of the way to a easy retirement?
If someone doesn't keep jumping careers or trying to "better themselves" by quitting and going back to school for something new every couple years, or become a self-employed risk-taker, it means they're just a slacker, like many of the doctors I've had dealings with that have spent the last 20/30 years at the same old job...

I hope that's sarcasm in your post.

But then, I have met people - especially self-described "self made" people who seem to think that the way they made it in life is the way every-one else can make it through life; because we all know "just the right people" and are lucky enough to have the resources and opportunities to be able to start our own businesses and succeed.
Or that people who might have weighed the risks of striking out on their own, and have made the choice for a more secure career where they can rely on having time for, say, family or friends, and perhaps benefits like a dependable wage, decent, affordable medical and a 401K to supplement social security when they retire at a reasonable enough age that they can spend a little time enjoying that retirement before their body breaks down enough they need assistance.
We all really do want that sort of life, even the entrepreneurs. Working without stress in a career you feel secure at - and getting in reward, a comfortable, at least middle class life. One where, unlike great grandparents who faced life without safety nets or union rights, a person doesn't go to bed every night worrying about and planning for the next disaster that could put a family out in the street. We all want to be able to retire a little "early" - before our bodies start slowing down or giving out, before we start waking up every day in pain, but still get up to go to a job because it is hard work to keep a roof over one's head, put food on the table, gas in the car, and pay all the bills.

Unfortunately, not everyone can be a successful business owner. There are also more than triple the amount of employee-based - i.e. minimum wage to skilled or educated worker - jobs than there are employer or professional/manager/owner type careers out there.
In my opinion, those who don't respect the work that employees do,that look at a hired workforce as lazy, stupid slackers to be exploited, have some serious issues with their perception of themselves as well as the reality of the world around them.

Frankly, it's scary how much this increasingly libertarian society starts lumping in 97% of the older workforce with the three or so percent of the workforce that use their "seniority" as a reason to go through the motions until retirement - it feels as if workers are being set up to lose their humanity - to be treated as nothing more than tools to be disposed of as soon as they get too old or too damaged to be profitable.

In the 1880's Jay Gould - who started out his life as a worker, making millions through business partnerships and leveraged buy-outs, said "I can hire half the working class to kill the other half".
We're back at that point. Giving up civil rights while worshiping on the alter of corporate productivity.

Haele

[pipoman]

14. I believe in promotion and raises

should be based on a combination of seniority and merit. Basing promotion and raises strictly on seniority leaves little incentive for going above and beyond, excelling, seeking innovation, expressing creativity and/or low productivity. It can result in a grind, especially for newer employees. It creates a hierarchy based simply on longevity and not based on talent. I really don't understand why anyone would think basing advancement only on seniority only is a good idea. I also don't believe merit only is good criteria as it leads to issues with nepotism, favoritism, or brown nosing. There is so much competition in every aspect of US labor from other countries that it has became imperative to require high productivity to keep what jobs haven't already been exported. The jobs which can't be exported are the only ones which have clung to a system of seniority as basis for advancement. Of coarse I don't expect you or anyone else to necessarily agree with me...just my feelings from my own observation.

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. Teachers are public employees. So are police officers.

Seniority is the best system for public employees.

I don't hear anyone talking about getting rid of the most experienced police officers or paying them based on the crime rate. That's silly. Everyone knows that wouldn't be fair.

So why is it okay to pay teachers based on factors they have no control over?

The answer is union busting, making government employees evil (since so many are unemployed, let's attack the ones with the secure jobs!), and an American public drunk on libertarian koolaid.

To see it here on DU is just beyond disheartening.

[pipoman]

24. So if it is public employees it is OK ?

But I see no clamoring over Democratic support of policy which has broken the back of the collective bargaining system through trade agreements. If a Democrat opposes trade agreements which have been the biggest union busting movement in history, they are labeled freeper protectionists. Seems like a double standard to me.

[proud2BlibKansan]

26. Sounds like a strawman to me

Trade agreements are a completely different topic.

Why are you changing the subject? :)

[pipoman]

63. You are the one who brought up union busting..

and implying libertarianism as the reason others may believe in some weight given to merit. Organized labor is organized labor. I have tried to find info of public employee's unions opposing any trade deals and I can't find any...any surprise now unemployed formerly organized laborers have little interest in complaints from those same public employee unions now...'they came for a jew, I wasn't a jew, so I did nothing' syndrome..

[msanthrope]

37. You have no economic interest in discrimination--that's why 'senority' failed here.

Your economic interest is secondary to the civil rights of your students....

it's amazingly simple law.

[Hannah Bell]

67. it's bullshit.

[msanthrope]

85. It's the actual ruling. And if that's the best analysis the teacher's union can come up with,

'it's bullshit,' then I suspect they will not do well in court.

[Hannah Bell]

115. as you well know, i'm neither a teacher nor the representative of their union.

your post is bullshit.

[apocalypsehow]

89. +1

[ProgressiveProfessor]

54. Do you have any support for for contention that "Seniority is the best system for public employees"

Do you support it in all areas or just some. Any measures or metrics that buttress you opinion.

[haele]

53. Understood - but in many fields, like manufacturing and skilled service, there's only two ways

to advance if you want to keep working that steady job past five or ten years.
The first is advance into management - which takes not only a certian type of personailty, but the availability of management jobs. The second is to advance through seniority.

Mind you, I'm coming at this from the employee's view. Most people work to provide themselves with enough to support whatever family they have and their own old age. Especially the older they get, and the more responsiblities they have. There are always workers who like to change things up every once and a while and do something different every four or five years, and senority has little attraction for them, but your cog in the machine, day in, day out worker - the majority of the jobs in the US, in fact- depends on seniority for a way to make it up the ladder without having the additional struggle of trying to find new ways to be "exeplorary" so that HR doesn't have an excuse to just randomly fire people when the shareholders decide they want more profit.
The issue with merit raises is one that I'm very familiar with - while upper management often gets bonuses and commissions, the workforce is "entitled" to merit raises if the company makes enough revenue to support it. Workforce merit raises are never put in the same pot of profit that managment bonuses are.
My observation and experiance is that merit raises are never granted consistantly, and if the employee has planned to work a career with a company, will never end up with as much of a pay increase as seniority raises. For a worker who is trying to be responsible and save for college or pay the mortgage down as quickly as possible, merit raises are great short term, but aren't something to rely on.

Haele

[apocalypsehow]

90. +1. n/t.

[msanthrope]

33. well, the point here is that economic interests don't override the civil rights of children--

I wrote extensively on how an economic interest in senority can't work against the civil rights of children--

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/msanthrope/1


Because after all, it's all about the kids.

[pipoman]

61. Thanks for that..

another good reason to disallow promotion based solely on seniority.

[SidDithers]

64. +1. Great post...nt

Sid

[Jefferson23]

4. This was an approved settlement involiving the ACLU chapter out there..

This is the best they could get?? What the hell is that, I would like to know why they believed they needed to settle in the first
place.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. Good question n/t

[msanthrope]

30. Here's my journal on the matter--the ACLU got exactly what it asked for. Complete victory for them!

Which is a good thing, since the plaintiffs in the matter were the children who suffered losing 45% of their teaching staff.

Read up on the suit, here---

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/msanthrope/1

[Jefferson23]

48. Thank you for the info. n/t

[Honeycombe8]

9. This doesn't mean that tenured teachers WILL be the ones laid off.

It just frees up the decision makers to look at productivity and quality, and make layoff decisions on that basis. That is the way all of the non-union employment market works.

If you own a deli, and you have five workers but have to lay off one. It doesn't make sense that you HAVE to lay off the last one you hired, if that one happens to be the best worker you have. The one who always shows up on time, gets along with the customers, has a good attitude, works diligently, etc. But this ruling doesn't mean you HAVE to lay off the one most senior. That one may be your best worker. Maybe you want to lay off worker #3.

[madfloridian]

10. Of course it means that under the new education "reforms"

being done by this administration. Cheaper is better, and teachers with tenure make more money.

Tenure can be broken for good cause anyway, and anything that says otherwise is propaganda.

Many of us have written a lot about teacher firings and attacks on tenure.

TFA and this court ruling may devastate public education. No good teacher will want to be hired without any job security.

[Honeycombe8]

11. I repeat: It doesn't REQUIRE decision makers to lay off tenured teachers.

We here in the corporate/business world have been through layoffs. It is true that the more highly paid are more often laid off (from my experience). But most are not. If 100 are laid off, I'd say that I've seen that maybe 60% are tenured workers, with the rest being less so. (Just taking a rough guess, there.) Many are chronically ill, costing the co. in insurance claims. That's where the danger lies, I think.

The more senior but still productive workers, with no special problems, are usually not laid off. It's in the company's interests to keep those workers, even though they are paid highly.

I think it could be a good thing for the education system for teachers to be aware their jobs are at risk if they aren't considered good at their jobs, or if they miss a lot of work, or have other work-related problems. It may not be good, so to speak, for the teachers. But it could be a good thing for the education system and the schools and students.

One thing I've noticed in the several layoffs I've lived through is that the company begins the layoffs with workers who have been a problem in some way, anyway. Things that a company will put up with in good times are no longer acceptable in bad times. They're the first to go, regardless of tenure (problems with co-workers, missing too much work, bad quality work, bad attitude, etc.). Then I've noticed that people with physical ailments (ins. claims) are let go. Those that have had chronic or repeated insurance claims over a number of years (this could be a coincidence, though, because if you have ailments, then that would affect your work performance).

I'm a very senior worker at my company. I just made it through layoffs the last couple of years. I was sweating it. I made it, but I am aware that, even though I've been there a long time & have a good reputation, I am competing with younger workers and have to produce at a competitive capacity, in order to stay employed. I don't know that I always succeed at that, but I try. That's a good thing for me, the company, our clients.

[madfloridian]

12. Educating children is not like the corporate world.

But that's the point for the Obama administration and Duncan.... to turn schools over to be treated as a business.

I'm not going to argue, I have written enough to justify my stance...and my anger with the dismantling of public schools by Democrats!!

[Honeycombe8]

13. It is the same in one respect: You are providing a service. So is my company.

It is the CLIENTS who matter most. It is the STUDENTS who matter most.

A teacher who is productive and works hard has nothing to worry about.

[LWolf]

15. We do provide a service,

and it is our students who matter most.

They aren't best served by inexperience. If you think this isn't about union-busting and replacing experience with cheaper inexperience, you haven't been paying attention.

I'm not sure what your business is. I can tell you, though, that our service is different from most in this respect: we offer students opportunities. Success requires that they make the most of those opportunities. They are not passive recipients of something that we "give" them or "do" to them. What we do requires their active engagement to be useful. It also requires a certain level of readiness to be most effective.

[maryf]

109. Plus our students aren't cogs, aren't identical products...

each student, each class, every year is different, immeasurably so...
but I'm preaching to the choir in you! :)

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. If you really believe that you are naive.

I can't count the number of productive hard-working teachers I know who have been forced out of the profession or quit when they saw the writing on the wall.

[WinkyDink]

22. "A teacher who is productive and works hard has nothing to worry about." Bwahahahah! Do not even

BEGIN to speak on this.

[msanthrope]

40. And just as you cannot discriminate, neither can teachers---

senority cannot be used to discriminate against the civil rights of students.

Here's a link to the lawsuit, and the settlement--the court found the priority to be the civil rights of students, not the economic interests of the teachers....

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/msanthrope/1

[Hannah Bell]

81. loooooool

[riderinthestorm]

Yes but the teachers have to take every student no matter how awful

It would be like you having to make a sandwich, and it better be perfect dammit, but the turkey has gone rancid. You can have the best quality bread, cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, onions, mustard, mayo and pickles but that one bad element can spoil the entire thing.

A teacher has to take that bad element and work with it while still trying to keep the rest going. The most productive and hardworking teacher in the world can't cope with 30 kids in their classroom, 3 of whom don't speak english, 2 are poor and out of their mind with hunger, 2 can't read for shit, 1 is ADHD, and 1 is dyslexic. At best the teacher will keep the class functional and perhaps keep most of them going at grade level and maybe not even that. But excellence? Or critical thinking skills?

The only way those kinds of miracles happen are with teachers who have the experience and knowledge gleaned from dealing with those kinds of insane situations year after year.

Honestly, the analogies about teachers that people come up with are crazy!! And of all of them, the corporate model has to be the worst! Have you ever volunteered in a school classroom situation before? That teacher must put up with EVERY student assigned to them. With a corporation, you can dump the bad product and sign a better contract with a new supplier. Teachers must deal with every single bad product that lands in that room.

Not acknowledging that is bullshit.

[madfloridian]

107. No, that is not true at all.

That is a simplistic dismissal of what real education is about.

That is what this administration has allowed and pushed....that education is a business.

Yes, productive teachers who do well have a hell of a lot to worry about. Esp. if they have worked for years and are near the top end of the salary scale.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. Children aren't sandwiches

Schools aren't delis.

But yes, that's what Corporate America wants.

[knitter4democracy]

93. You're neglecting an important factor in the decision: money.

Teachers are paid on a scale that's based on education and experience. Those who have taught longer and have more degrees are paid more. You can pay a new teacher out of college half what you can pay someone with 20 years and a master's.

Last hired, first fired protects those who are more expensive, those who have earned that right through longevity (which is getting more rare in our profession) and higher degrees.

[Le Taz Hot]

16. Dangerous in so many ways:

It takes the teeth of the Teacher's Unions.

Older teachers are more likely to need medical care which, in turn, raises the insurance premiums. You KNOW there will, all of a sudden, be LOTS of over-40/50 teachers deemed suddenly incompetent.

As per the article: ". . . keep more effective instructors." Define "more effective." It's ludicrous to think that a teacher in the inner-city with little to no resources and lots of ESL students should have the same outcome as a teacher in, say, Beverly Hills teaching all-English speaking students with every resource available to them. Defining "more effective" through test scores (ala NCLB) has proven to be disastrous. (Wasn't there a report that college students have NO critical thinking skills? That's not an accident.)

Just one more salvo in dismantling the rights of We The People.

[Starry Messenger]

17. So is Deasy going to fire himself and replace himself with a 25 year old?

Since he's all about the "yout", he really should.

[WinkyDink]

21. "Lifted up the voice of" lower-paid, less-experienced, fewer-advanced-degrees teachers who will go

by the new corporate book of standardized testing.

[Cid_B]

25. I'm ok with this...

... Seniority should be a contributing factor and not the only one when it comes to teacher performance.

My wife is a young teacher and can see the whole spectrum in the older generation ranging from "Here cause you can't do anything about it and collecting my check" to "Dedicated motivated mentor"

[WinkyDink]

124. No kidding. And as an older teacher I saw younger ones with no depth of knowledge.

[snooper2]

27. I'm with the ACLU on this one

Teachers that want to start out and make a change in inner city schools, and it ends up being a revolving door...

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. And the experienced teachers who have been making that change are just fucked

Of course, the inexperienced ones are so much cheaper! More money for publishers and 'philanthropists'!

What a system.

[msanthrope]

39. You have no economic interest in discrimination. Senority cannot override the civil rights

of the children that filed this lawsuit....

[proud2BlibKansan]

44. Seniority used to mean wisdom and talent

It still does in some professions.

Does the country want their neediest children taught by experienced veterans with multiple degrees and a working knowledge of the culture of their students

or

inexperienced untrained inexpensive newbies who, until the first day they report to work, have never even driven through the neighborhood where their children live?

Who will these children sue when they are failed by the newbies?

Oh well, at least we showed those senior teachers!

[msanthrope]

50. Well, then--these teachers with wisdom and talent should hie themselves off to protected schools,

then--

If you read the settlement, there are schools who are protected from layoffs. Perhaps teachers who wish job security should apply to them--and if they have senority, then both they and the kids benefit.

All these wise, talented senior teachers need do is transfer to the schools given priority under the settlement....of course, these are the schools that are the poorest. But don't those kids deserve to have the best?

[WinkyDink]

125. Or maybe they should just pick up their families, leave America, and move to India!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

55. Its still does with some people

Its not profession related, it dependent on the individual

[snooper2]

57. It doesn't always..

There are plenty of people at my work who should have been let go 10 years ago, but "she's nice" and "he's been with us for a really long time".

Meanwhile they are doing less than a stellar job. Get's annoying walking around busting your ass at work and every time you walk by cube x- sure enough, playing on the Internet.

[Nye Bevan]

59. One of the best teachers I ever had was a relative "newbie".

He switched to teaching from another profession and was a highly talented and inspiring teacher. Why should someone like this be first on the list when layoffs are needed?

[proud2BlibKansan]

60. And the worst one I know is a newbie

Just anecdotal nonsense, which doesn't further this discussion.

[Nye Bevan]

73. So this illustrates the point

that there is not necessarily a correlation between how good a teacher is and how much time they have served.

If layoffs are necessary at my kids' school, I want the worst teachers laid off, not the newest.

[proud2BlibKansan]

97. Actually it illustrates that anecdotal stories are not evidence

Just because the 3rd grade teacher at your neighborhood school is great doesn't make all 3rd grade teachers great.

[Nye Bevan]

99. "Evidence"? Sorry, I didn't realize that this was a legal proceeding.

So you don't think anybody discussing a topic on an internet discussion board should ever mention incidents from their own personal experience that are relevant to the issue being discussed? :eyes:

[proud2BlibKansan]

112. One person's experience is really not that relevant

Look at this mathematically. There are how many teachers in this country? Can you take one of those teachers and draw a conclusion about ALL teachers based on what you know about this ONE teacher?

That happens all the time here. Sometimes it's two teachers, or even more.

You can't pass judgement on the group based on the behavior of one. One is not relevant, it's not reliable - it's just anecdotal.

[coalition_unwilling]

135. And you'll see a collective bargaining agreement (that includes

seniority clause)rendered toothless. You either support the principle of collective bargaining for workers or you don't. If you don't, you're a scab. Sounds like you don't support collective bargaining. Oh well.

[Nye Bevan]

148. I have no problem with collective bargaining.

I (along with the ACLU, and many other DUers in this thread) just think that it makes no sense to use seniority as the only criterion when teachers are laid off.

[pipoman]

69. It can mean that,

it can also mean bad attitudes, complacency, and bare minimal effort because of a system which there is virtually no incentive to excel and no consequences for poor performance.

[sarcasmo]

28. What is the point of seniority then ?

[msanthrope]

31. Senority doesn't override the civil rights of children. Read about the rights violated--

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/msanthrope/1

[sarcasmo]

36. It's more anti union rhetoric.

[msanthrope]

38. Really?? The ACLU is busting unions, now? Explain to me how an economic interest

takes priority in law over the civil rights of students????

Because that's what this lawsuit was about--the civil rights of students.

[Hannah Bell]

138. economic interest is what brought this case to the courts. the economic interest of the ruling

class.

[msanthrope]

144. Yes. The ACLU routinely files on behalf of the 'ruling class.' n/t

[Hannah Bell]

145. lol. the aclu was involved, it must be just. ken starr's law firm was also involved.

[msanthrope]

146. So now the ACLU is conspiring with Kirkland Ellis?

Did they all meet up at Bohemian Grove? When do the Bilderbergers come in??

[Hannah Bell]

147. lol. typical. your bag of tricks isn't very big.

we know this suit was courtesy of the deformers, not two little 8th-graders.

the free legal services came from ken starr's outfit.

those noted philanthropists.

also the firm of judge bork & george bush peeps.

[msanthrope]

29. Excellent--the kids who brought the lawsuit deserved to win!

No child's school should have to lose 45% of their teachers because of layoffs and senority rules. Of course, the ACLU ably defended these kids who objected to getting the short end of the stick because of their socio-economic class.

Statement of one of the Plaintiffs---

"My name is Sharail Reed. I’m in 8th grade at Markham and when I grow up I want to be a psychologist or a lawyer.

This suit is about how it’s wrong for us to have so many different teachers and not really to be learning. In my history class this year I had so many different teachers that it was a blur. They would write their names on the board and the next day the name would be erased because the teacher would be gone. One time we stood outside the class most of the period after the bell rang waiting for a sub to show up.

I’m part of this suit because I’m standing up for what I believe and what I know is right. I don’t want this to happen to somebody else. I've already been through it and I want it to stop right here. I’m trying to make a difference so the 7th graders here won’t have a bunch of subs.

SNIP

I know in other schools none of the teachers left because of the budget cuts. It’s not fair for my school to lose so many teachers. It feels like everyone else is learning except for us. It feels like we’re a lower class school and like we’re not as thought about as other schools. When it comes down to it, we all want to learn but when we don’t get the opportunity to learn we’re left with nothing."
http://www.aclu-sc.org/documents/view/227

For links to the underlying suit, and settlement--here's my detailed journal on this matter....

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/msanthrope/1

[xchrom]

32. if a person can be fired at any time for almost any reason --

it's never going to make for a very productive work environment.

oh people will dot their I's and cross their T's -- but who wants to put their all into a place with no real chance of security?

[msanthrope]

41. Respectfully, you've missed the point. This suit isn't about property rights--it's about the civil

rights of the children who filed the suit.

And while I understand teachers on this board focusing on their economic rights, isn't is supposed to be about the civil rights of the kids?

[xchrom]

43. getting what is needed for the kids doesn't have to come with creating an atmosphere

of uncertain employment security.

it's been posted here time and again -- you can use the search feature -- inexperienced teachers don't/can't deliver the very best to kids.

it's takes time for that experience to build into the person.

[proud2BlibKansan]

47. What's best for kids is what the argument used to be

We have just moved the goal posts and redefined 'best'.

[msanthrope]

51. What's best for the kids is that the civil rights of the student-Plaintiffs

were upheld--and not the economic interests of the teachers.

[msanthrope]

49. But this settlement encourages teachers to stay in the protected, and poorer

schools.

read the settlement--the schools protected from layoff are the poorest and most underperforming. If tenured teachers want 'job security' they now have a new incentive NOT to flee to the more affluent schools.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hannah Bell]

139. bullshit

[Matt_in_STL]

45. Who has job security these days?

In looking at any job that involves non-public employees such as teachers, police, etc, we are all subject to being let go at any time, regardless of seniority. I pride myself on working hard and excelling at my job while I do see others with seniority sitting on their hands oftentimes.

On the flip side of the job security argument, why should I have to worry about being laid off because I was the last one in, knowing that I have spent several years working above the standards of my peers with higher seniority? That doesn't give any incentive to work harder than what it takes to match everyone else. I guess that works if we want to be a country of mediocrity and doing just what it takes.

I do think teachers get the raw end of the deal and should be more highly respected and paid for what they do. In this case though, I also have to see where the children are coming from and having to deal with the revolving door of teachers. Are we going to be a society where the children in higher income areas get the more tenured teachers and the low income children get whoever might be coming in the door that day? There has to be a balance found somewhere and I think that is what the ACLU was trying to accomplish, whether or not they did it in a way that will satisfy everyone.

[proud2BlibKansan]

46. Oh geez. It's the 'everyone is getting screwed so I don't feel sorry for teachers' argument

I've never understood why we didn't insist all workers have the rights teachers do. Instead we have this false notion of making everyone suffer because some of us are getting screwed. :eyes:

[pipoman]

74. Do you know if the teachers unions opposed NAFTA?

I honestly don't, have looked and can't find their stance on that, particularly damning to other union laborer's, agreement.

[Hannah Bell]

80. yes.

THE SIGNING OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT (NAFTA) BY Mexico, Canada, and the United States in 1993 reinforced the accelerated process, underway since the mid- 1980s, by which Mexico's economy was becoming integrated into the world economy, and especially into the U.S. economy. Because of NAFTA's possible effects on employment, wages, and social rights, it was viewed with great concern by education experts, teachers, students, and teachers unions. Their concern was based on what they foresaw as NAFTA's impact beyond trade issues. Indeed, the agreement represented the culmination of a process in which public policy was clearly, and increasingly, being defined by supranational institutions, a situation that restricted the possibilities for union action to defend social rights or to influence public policy at the national level.

Within this context, the Trinational Coalition to Defend Public Education was organized by unions in the educational sector in Mexico, Canada, and the United States. This article describes the process by which this trinational effort was organized and the obstacles it faces. <1>

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=4E5B165AA401913EE148CDC2AD4F8318.inst1_3a?docId=5001869591


Education Week: Educators Mull Potential NAFTA Impact on SchoolsNov 10, 1993 ... The American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association oppose NAFTA, following the lead of most organized-labor groups. ...
www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1993/11/10/10nafta.h13.htmlThe global assault on teaching, teachers, and their unions: ... - Google Books Result
Mary F. Compton, Lois Weiner - 2008 - Education - 281 pages
In the United States, both the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) opposed NAFTA based on the general labor ...
books.google.com/books?isbn=023060630X...

[pipoman]

82. Thanks

[Matt_in_STL]

129. It isn't that at all

As I said, I do feel for teachers but the argument that teachers won't feel secure in their jobs really does apply to everyone. I suppose I could start a thread on every single field and mention how that specific field can't feel secure in their jobs but it was easier to point it out here, where the discussion was being had. Also, my point was, just as in any field seniority does not equal good or expert but we are asking our children to accept that it does on face value simply based on the years someone has spent in a job. As I said, I have seen may people who have spent many years in a field get complacent and fall into mediocrity. While teachers are awesome, they are human just like anyone else and can fall into that same trap. I don't think it is fair to anyone who tries to excel at teaching or to the children to let someone who does that ride it out.

With that said, is there a fair way to determine which tenured teachers are just riding it out? Probably not at this point.

[pipoman]

71. Welcome to the wonderful world of

everyplace except public employees. The argument that seniority security = productive employees is simply not supported by any studies I am aware of. Have any evidence that this theory is more than an excuse given by those in support of seniority only as criteria for security and advancement?

[Nye Bevan]

114. That's how it works at Apple, Facebook and Google,

as well as most other corporations. People can be fired at any time for almost any reason.

I guess that's why Apple is such an unproductive work environment.

[riderinthestorm]

117. Yes but Apple, Facebook, and Google only hire and work with "the best"

while teachers have to take every last crap student and try to work with that!

That's the complaint about charter schools - they can pick and choose who goes there, and weed out the bad apples (as it were). Those bad apples go to the public schools and the teachers MUST work with those kids. Rven as they get ever more kids piled into their classrooms, and even as aides are cut, and even as social services for those needy kids are cut.

Corporations can cut out bad suppliers, bad contractors, bad employees. Teachers MUST take EVERYONE. And work with every student in their classroom. The corporate model is the worst possible analogy and I can't believe anyone on DU Is using this.

[Nye Bevan]

128. I don't like you you label certain kids as "crap students".

Yes, depending on the child, teaching can be more challenging in some situations than in others. Just like some software issues can be trickier to resolve, and some hardware problems can be difficult to address. Either way, you want the best staff, not necessarily the longest-serving staff, to work on these problems.

[riderinthestorm]

140. Then I can say with certainty that you haven't volunteered or taught in any school ever.

There are drug dealing 8th graders. There are incredibly rude elementary school kids who have never been taught to respect authority. There are drunk and high teens, with violent tendencies and gang affiliations who are determined to wreck a classroom and take that teacher down.

This isn't tricky computer code, it's human children who are complex and individual, and yes actually I want both: the teachers who are both the best AND have the seniority to handle the problems we're throwing at them in the classroom. Especially as funding gets cut and these teachers have to deal with ever larger class sizes, no PE for energy release, no art or music for creative expression....

[Reader Rabbit]

52. Corporatists despise wisdom and experience.

And they definitely despise the confidence with which those with wisdom and experience will express their negative opinions of stupid decisions like this. That's what this is all about. Ensuring that teaching will eventually become just a group of naive, idealistic, inexperienced kids who don't have the wherewithal or the years to realize they're being exploited.

[pipoman]

76. So you like the idea of poorer schools not getting the same

quality of teachers as the richer schools? You do know that this is what the OP is about, no?

[Reader Rabbit]

94. I teach in a "poor" school, do you?

Our school is tough. We have high teacher turnover, and consequently, a large percentage of younger teachers. But to assume that somehow this means that our students are getting a crappy education is a load of manure. It is also a load of manure to blame our high number of young teachers on seniority or tenure. As mentioned in the article:

...the settlement does not attack the root causes of high turnover at these schools, including creating safe, clean working conditions so teachers don't leave.

Our kids don't get the same opportunities as kids in the "rich" school, because they come in with fewer of the fundamentals that the higher SES kids get from their home environment. Consequently, at the "richer" schools, students have far more elective options, because very few of their students require remediation in reading, math, or ESL. Nearly half of ours do.

Friends who have transferred to "richer" schools tell me how wonderful it is to have students who actually do their homework, care about their grades, and put an effort into their schoolwork. Many of our students are the opposite, because they have no role models at home telling or showing them that that's how they need behave in school if they want to succeed. This is not the fault of the teachers; it is because these students are being raised in generational poverty. Until people stop blaming teachers and start working to counter the effects of poverty, this will never change.

I've been at my school for ten years, and I don't want to move to a different school. If I'm going to teach, I want to be where I can do the most good; however, I completely understand why experienced teachers transfer to schools where their students understand and care about the value of a good education. Those feelings are especially strong on days when I have to listen to people who don't know what the *#$& they're talking about tell me how completely lacking in value my knowledge, experience, and dedication are.

[pipoman]

95. And the problem is compounded by seniority based layoffs

with a more dramatic impact on poorer schools. Maybe the answer is that teachers lose their seniority if they opt to change schools themselves?

[msanthrope]

96. I have.

I understand that teachers want to transfer. And they should be able to. But the civil rights of children come before your employment/contract rights.

The LAUSD has the duty to prevent budgetary layoffs from disproportionately hitting schools in poorer, minority areas. That's a higher priority than any individual teacher's rights of contract.

Transfer is a privilege, not a right. More stable schools is a right, not a privilege.

[Still a Democrat]

56. Ridiculous to assume a prefect relationship between experience and performance

And layoffs by seniority make that assumption.

My experience with my children is little or no relationship between the ability of the teacher and their years of experience. Once you're past a few years in a position with stagnant duties, the additional years mean less and less.

[Nye Bevan]

58. Perfect common sense. Good decision.

Thinking back to my school days there were some great teachers who were relatively recent hires, and some terrible teachers who had been around forever. If layoffs are necessary, why in the world should good teachers be laid off before bad teachers, just because the bad teachers have been around longer?

[Joe Fields]

62. Teachers should not be protected by seniority or tenure.

By not being protected, it would keep them on their toes and continually focused on doing the best they can for their students, in accordance with administration policies.

[haele]

72. No, the lack of protection means that the teachers are exposed to more political risks

than most other employees are.
Teachers become nothing more than a customer service rep or a worker at Apple's "Genius Bar". Which means, if a parent or a church or even a student gets pissed at them over homework assignments, grades, or class curriculum, they can get that person's job taken away by the simple expediency of putting political pressure on the principal. Or a new administrator comes in and decides they don't like that teacher.
If all a teacher wanted to be was a tutor, where they and their students can have a customer-service based relationship, then the teacher would become a tutor.
But if you want to be a teacher at a public school, then you need to be able to prepare your lesson plans and teach the subject you were hired to teach to all the children who have been assigned to your class, no matter how capable they are of learning or not. Which requires a certain amount of protection because every semester, some of those kids will fail, no matter how hard you try to teach them, and some parents will blame you for their little darling's problems, no matter how little influence you are able to have on them.
Even the most successful teachers will fail, and fail often because ultimately, the success of their work depends on the ability of all their students - their customers - to benefit from their actions, and despite their best efforts, they don't have the additional time and attention to give to those children are just not able to learn in the environment all the other children are. Without the protection of tenure, you are pretty much guaranteeing that there will always be some reason would be found to let go most of the teachers who are not political enough players to get in good with the school administration just so some bean counter can keep "the school budget" - before those teacher reach vestment.
So most teachers will probably have to start over every 5 - 10 years, if they're lucky.
Corporations love to do that with their workforce; I've worked quite a few places where the christmas party is where everyone but the brown-nosers and the experienced workers that haven't gotten vested yet get the pink slips after "a job well done" because the company has to "retrench" and reorganize.

Same will happen to teachers, especially since no one apparently likes to pay taxes to support the schools that those other people's kids go to "for free".

Haele

[Joe Fields]

75. so you say. I don't buy that argument one bit.

[msanthrope]

88. Interesting point, but that's not what happened here.

Seniority still exists. So does tenure.

But when budgetary layoffs happen, they must be more equally spread across schools. This has nothing to do with individual teacher firings.

[Lucian]

77. This was a political stunt.

It's one more step in dismantling teacher unions. Job security is great. You don't have to go to work one day to the next worrying if you're going to get fired over some trivial matter.

[pipoman]

78. If that were the only reason, iit might make sense....it isn't

what if it isn't a trivial matter? What if it is total self absorbed complacency? What if it is ineffective techniques? What if it is poor performance? What if it is poor attendance? What incentive does someone who has tired of the grind have to improve or even maintain mediocrity?

[Lucian]

79. If a teacher sucks they wouldn't make it into the union to begin with.

Before I was a Teamster, I had to "prove my worth" in 90 days, to see if I was good enough to make it into the union. Teachers have to "prove their worth" before they get into their union. This prevents incompetent people from joining the union.

Maybe you should read up on unions before answering. It'll help you make fewer idiotic statements.

[pipoman]

83. What is idiotic is having a 90 day litmus period

effectively justify and protect what could be 30 years of complacency. Complacency isn't a statement of incompetence, only poor performance. Of coarse you believe that every union teacher is a stellar educator I am sure.

[Starry Messenger]

106. 90 days? What are on about?

Tenure takes years. :crazy: 3-5 I think, depending on the state.

[dsc]

108. Teachers have a years long litmus period

In all states it is at least 3 years, in some it is 4, and a few it is 5. At the end of that time the district either offers you tenure or shows you the door. Then once you have tenure the district has to have cause to fire you but you can still be fired. Tenure isn't a get a job forever card.

[proud2BlibKansan]

113. + a gazillion

[Starry Messenger]

122. So are you going to come back and acknowledge

that you spent this whole thread talking out of your @ss? Teachers opposed NAFTA and bad trade policies and tenure is not granted after 90 days. You jumped all over our shit without a parachute.

[pipoman]

123. The poster I was responding to

is who mentioned 90 days. In reality, if a person isn't enthusiastic for the first 3-5 years of their new career, they have chosen the wrong profession, regardless the profession. How do we know that the 7 year itch doesn't bring with it complacency or 10 for that matter. I realize that a teacher can be dismissed for cause after that, simply not being creative, again, complacency, just overall lack of engagement likely wouldn't qualify as cause. Certainly I have known 30 year teachers who were great and worth their weight in gold, I have also met 15 year teachers who have fallen into a rut and thus became less effective or ineffective. Anyone who says that this doesn't happen, even rather regularly, is simply not being honest about human nature. While I understand the need for some job security, too much contributes to complacency in any profession.

I am not anti-teacher, I am anti-entrenchment, I believe that experience plays a part in quality, but far from being the only criteria which should be used. I too don't like the standardized testing model of applying the same standards to every school then determining effectiveness based on test scores. Maybe involving students or parents in the evaluation process...putting some weight in their opinion. Maybe peer review. I don't know the answers, just think that these people with bigger brains than mine should be able to come up with some combination of criteria for layoffs which would save good or outstanding teachers with less years than mediocre teachers with more job time.

[Starry Messenger]

131. In reality, most of the teachers who realize they

are not cut out for teaching *leave* the profession in the 3-5 years before tenure. So eliminating teachers who already have tenure is usually eliminating long-term and passionate teachers who are simply too costly and are also generally outspoken. That is reality. This is going to be abused, because it already has been, in just the way we have been telling you. Supervisors can't wait to eliminate long-termers and replace them with cheap and fresh-cheeked TFA teachers who will just be grateful to have a job. They will keep their mouths shut and their heads down, so they don't get RIF'd either.

There is no such thing as "too much job security" in this economy. Free market buzzwords seem out of place in this discussion if you ask me, and strange since you are apparently against NAFTA.

[Reader Rabbit]

132. +1

I don't understand why the general public is so unwilling to listen to teachers' professional opinions on this. Do they also ignore their doctor when s/he gives them a diagnosis? Even when it's confirmed by a 2nd, 3rd, etc., opinion?

It boggles the mind.

[Starry Messenger]

133. I don't get it either RR.

At some point, maybe in the '80's, the public starting nodding along to anything an MBA in a suit and tie told them was right. No one listens to the workers anymore. :(

[Hannah Bell]

121. why don't you ask the teachers in the ten states who work without any binding contract at all how

they feel about it? since those teachers can be fired at will.

while you're at it, you could ask why their students perform worse than students in states with tenure.

it's a bullshit case & a bullshit ruling. the case was a test case for denial of tenure.

the only contracts that are legally valid, apparently, are contracts with rich people. & they can fuck you six ways to sunday to enforce theirs.

[msanthrope]

87. So the ACLU is union busting? Interesting. n/t

[msanthrope]

92. This settlement applies to budgetary layoffs--not individual firings.

YOu could read the settlement--plenty of links provided upthread.

Senority still exists, and so does tenure. But when layoffs occur, they must be spread more evenly through the district, so that no school has more layoffs, by percentage, than any other.

[Angry Dragon]

98. They have a contract

If that contract is not valid, then no contract is valid

[SidDithers]

70. A good decision supporting the kids and the ACLU...nt

Sid

[Nye Bevan]

100. Yes, I'm surprised by all the ACLU hatred in this thread (nt)

[Reader Rabbit]

102. Really? 'Cause I'm surprised by all the teacher hatred.

Actually, I'm not, really. There's been a preponderance of teacher-bashing lately. This thread is just the most recent example.

[Nye Bevan]

103. So you think the ACLU hates teachers?

:shrug:

[Reader Rabbit]

104. Please don't be disingenuous.

You know I meant the nasty comments toward teachers made in this thread.

The ACLU is well-meaning, but like so many people who have never been in the classroom, they are putting the blame in the wrong place. Teachers are an easy target, and blaming teachers means that no one else has to take responsibility for our nation's children or step up to help them.

[Reader Rabbit]

86. How does private industry conduct layoffs when RIF-ing is required?

It is last-hired, first-fired, no? Why do people only seem to have a problem with that when it comes to public education?

[msanthrope]

91. Because you forgot a very important point--in fact, the point of the entire lawsuit.

The civil rights of the children.

The court found that senority (a property/contract right) takes a back seat to the civil rights of children who deserve to have stable, performing schools. If a contract right vitiates a civil right--it fails.

[Reader Rabbit]

101. Your basic premise is faulty.

It is not teacher tenure or seniority that impinges upon the civil rights of the children. That is a red herring, which you have jumped on lock, stock, and barrel. It is living in poverty that impinges upon the civil rights of the children. Your persistent determination to ignore that basic fact does not change the situation.

You can parrot the corporate meme, "the civil rights of the children, the civil rights of the children, the civil rights of the children" (for God's sake, think of the children!) all day long, but it will not do a damned thing to improve the schools or communities of these kids. Until our society at large starts giving a damn about all its children, those improvements will never happen, and we will never have equity in our schools.

Meanwhile, I'm walking the walk by teaching in a "poor" school every single day, and I've been doing it for the last 10 years. With any luck, I will continue to do it for 15–20 more—that is, unless you, Bill Gates, Eli Broad, and the rest of the arrogant corporate toads who think they know how to teach better than people who have been doing it most of their lives have their way.

[msanthrope]

120. My basic premise happens to be the reality of the ruling.

And I find it highly ironic that in the defense of property/employment rights, you characterize the ACLU's actions as 'parrot(ting) a corporate meme.'

You have a financial interest in senority, which is why I suspect you choose to characterize the civil rights of others as a 'red herring.'

[Reader Rabbit]

130. Your relentless attempts to demonize teachers detract from your arguments.

And, for the record, I didn't characterize ACLU as parroting a corporate meme; I characterized you as doing that. (In truth, it was hard not to, as the phrase "the civil rights of the children" crops up in nearly every post you have made in this thread.) Please do not falsify my words.

And you can claim that my and other teachers' position on this issue is purely motivated by financial self-interest until the end of time, but, again, you are engaging in falsification of the issues. (Aside: If you truly want people to give credence to your opinions, lying is probably not the best way to make that happen.) If I and other veteran teachers were motivated solely by financial matters, we never would have gone into teaching in the first place. Your attempts to ascribe capitalistic motives to teachers, I suspect, is influenced by the capitalists who are attempting to take over America's public education. Or perhaps it is simply projection on your part; however, just because you may be motivated by financial interests does not mean that all others are.

And again: I'm walking the walk and helping kids every day, as are many of the people whose professional opinions you have denigrated in this thread. If you truly care about our students, as you claim, shouldn't you be helping us help them?

[msanthrope]

142. Again, your financial prerogatives--seniority--don't overcome the civil rights of your students.

I don't expect you to argue against self-interest.

Teacher's don't make much, so I do expect them to attempt to safeguard as much as they can. You are none of you, saints.

As I've written previously, this has nothing to do with performance of individual teachers--

The LAUSD has the duty to prevent budgetary layoffs from disproportionately hitting schools in poorer, minority areas. That's a higher priority than any individual teacher's rights of contract.

Transfer is a privilege, not a right. More stable schools is a right, not a privilege.

[proud2BlibKansan]

105. +1

[maryf]

110. thanks

when will this end? (when we make it!) kr

[dsc]

111. I admit to never understanding what senority had to do with this

I have worked in two large districts and several smaller ones. All but one district I worked in had more than one high school. Here is how layoffs worked in every district I have ever worked in or attended. Say a district has two schools each with 12 teachers. Due to budget cuts the district must layoff four teachers. Say the four teachers with the least seniority work at school A. Then school B would have the two least senior teachers forced to move to school A giving both schools 10 teachers. Apparently one of two things is happening in LA. Either they are laying off teachers with no one forced to move or teachers are quitting to avoid moving. If it is the first thing then that is what should have been ordered. Make the least senior teachers at say Beverly Hills High go to the inner city school. If it is the second thing then apparently a large number of teachers prefer no job at all to a job in those schools. That is a failure of the system not the teachers.

[FooshIt]

118. That's the way it should be

keep the best teachers. seems obvious

[RegieRocker]

119. Translation = We want to lay those off that don't agree

with our views and kiss our asses.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

126. I'm amazed that this is controversial.

The idea that you should be keeping on your longest-serving staff rather than your best ones is just daft - doubly so in a job like teaching where there's so much room between doing the job adequately and doing it really well.

[proud2BlibKansan]

134. The issue is there is an assumption being made that longest serving is most likely to be incompetent

I would argue that is not true.

The elephant in the room is the higher salaries of the longest serving teachers. Easiest way to cut the budget is to get rid of the more expensive employees.

[Nye Bevan]

143. I don't think anyone is saying that.

In general, experience is good. In any school I would expect most of the good teachers tend to be the longer serving ones. The point is that there are plenty of exceptions to this, and length of service should not be the *only* consideration when salaries, promotions and layoffs take place.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

149. I've certainly heard that at the other end.

I know a reasonably teacher who'se said she's had trouble getting hired because due to her experience schools would have to pay her more than someone recently qualified. It seems likely that they'd make a similar calculation when firing.

[Cid_B]

136. Here's the problem...

Teachers have been trying to sell the idea that what they do is unquantifiable in any significant way and therefore the only fair way is to go by seniority.

We all know who crap teachers are and who the great ones are are there is no correlation between seniority and skill.

[Rage for Order]

141. Most excellent!

:applause: