Seniority has zero to do with educational quality

Seniority has zero to do with educational quality

Appeal

Appeal

I’ve discussed some of the points of the Vergara case in this post: Education Fallacies: Correlation does not equal causation. This month, The California Teachers Association & California Federation of Teachers formally filed their appeal to the ruling in Vergara v.California, which ruled that teacher tenure was unconstitutional in terms of protecting teachers who were not providing quality instruction to students.

SFGate.com writes:

The state and teachers unions have launched a frontal attack on the June 2014 ruling, arguing that neither the judge nor the nine student plaintiffs in the well-funded suit presented any evidence that the laws have harmed students or violated their constitutional rights.

In written arguments filed this month with the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles, the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers said the laws are based on sound policies — tenure protects experienced teachers from arbitrary or politically motivated dismissals, and basing layoffs on seniority is an objective process that promotes educational quality.

But the unions said those policy questions are legally irrelevant, because the students who filed the suit never showed that the laws affected their education. They showed no evidence that they were taught by an incompetent teacher who would have been fired or laid off had it not been for tenure or seniority protections, the unions said.

“Tenure protects experienced teachers from arbitrary or politically motivated dismissals and basing layoffs on seniority is an objective process that promotes educational quality”? There are labor laws in place to protect from arbitrary or politically motivated dismissals. But how can you explain to me that lay offs by seniority “promotes educational quality?” Seniority has zero to do with educational quality. Length of time in a job does not ensure that you are performing at a high level. Evaluations do that.

The ruling in June by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu was the first to strike down a teacher tenure law in any state. The appellate court will hear the case late this year or early next year. If its ruling is appealed further, the case could reach the state Supreme Court by the end of 2016.

Treu’s ruling followed an eight-week trial that included testimony by four students, one parent and competing groups of experts. He found that the laws violate the right of students to educational equality and “impose a disproportionate burden on poor and minority students.” The latter finding was based on a 2007 state report that found that students at “high-poverty, low-performing schools” were more likely than others to be taught by inexperienced and unqualified teachers.

We’ll see what the appellate review says of this case.

 

Advertisements

PA could start laying off teachers through evals, not seniority

http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1

Rep. Steve Bloom Discusses His Bill That Eliminates Seniority-based Furlough Decisions

The Pennsylvania legislature is primed to vote and pass a bill that would allow schools to initiate layoffs (as needed) through teacher evaluations instead of seniority, which is currently the case. Rep Steve Bloom discusses his bill in the video above.

Pennlive.com reports:

Gov. Tom Wolf spokesman Jeff Sheridan said the administration is reviewing Bloom’s bill but said the governor believes issues relating to seniority should be part of collective bargaining.

Hmm, I wonder if that means the governor may not sign the bill. We’ll if it comes down to contract negotiations, the Lawrence Public Schools contract has some great language they can borrow! From this post:

“The Superintendent has the right to lay off teachers and other district staff due to reductions in force or reorganizations resulting from declining enrollment or other budgetary or operational reasons. The Superintendent will establish the selection criteria for layoffs of teachers and other district staff. Such selection criteria may include, but are not limited to qualifications, licensure, work history (including elements such as discipline, attendance, evaluations, etc.), multiple measures of student learning, operational need and the best interests of the students. Where all other factors are equal, seniority may be used as the deciding factor.”

The bill would also allow the district to perform layoffs due to economic circumstances and not just declining enrollment or consolidating schools.

Other Republicans spoke in support of allowing economic reasons as a permitted justification for laying off staff. Current law only allows districts to furlough professional staff if there is a reduction in enrollment, if a program is curtailed or eliminated, or if schools are consolidated or reorganized.

Rep. Kristin Hill, R-Jacobus, said her district had to close its entire home economics program because it didn’t have the flexibility to lay off just some teachers to deal with a budgetary shortfall.

As a former school board member, Hill said she sees Bloom’s bill as giving school boards and administrators the tools necessary to ensure students receive the best education.

The majority of a schools budget is personnel and when you can’t make adjustments (and unions have helped make it so), teachers are keeping their jobs at the expense of kids education. Of course the PA state education union opposes the bill……but not on any really good reasons:

Pennsylvania State Education Association President Mike Crossey was strongly opposed.

He called it “a solution in search of a problem” at a time when the focus should be on getting more teachers into the classroom, “not throw more out.”

Furthermore, he faulted the committee for timing its consideration of the bill during Teacher Appreciation Week.

“I can’t think of a worse way to honor teachers for the great work they do than to vote on a bill like this one,” he said. “Bills like this are a distraction from real issues and just a way to punish teachers for years of hard work and well-earned experience in the classroom.”

Talk about a “distraction from real issues!” So what if the bill if being discussed and voted on during Teacher Appreciation Week. It’s more important that Rep Hill’s district have home economics program than caring what week of the year a bill is being discussed. I swear unions oppose things because it’s touting the union line and no one ever deviates even when it’s in the best interests of kids to do so. Their primary focus is on teachers, not kids.

Of course there are the usual objections about evaluations and funding, but this objection is really not realistic:

Among other concerns, Rep. Mark Longietti, D- Mercer, worried that also extending the probationary period for new teachers from three years to five years before they would be eligible for tenure might discourage people from entering the teaching profession.

But Rep. Seth Grove, R-Dover, said the young people he has spoken with say it will have the opposite effect. They want this kind of job protection and not face having to be let go because of an arbitrary, archaic law that protects teachers with more seniority.

Hopefully the bill will pass and the governor will sign it.