This was in Today’s San Jose Mercury News
April 21, 2010 at 7:18 pm melaniejaneforter 1 comment
Opinion: Neediest schools should be able to keep their best teachers
By Arun Ramanathan
Special to the Mercury News
Posted: 04/20/2010 08:00:00 PM PDT
Last month, school districts around California issued layoff notices to 30,000 teachers because of the state budget crisis. It is deplorable that our state has forced the education system to take a disproportionate share of our state’s budget cuts over the past three years, forcing this annual layoff process.
But what’s just as unfortunate is the way that these layoffs are implemented. Instead of keeping the best teachers and laying off those who are least effective, districts were forced to let the newer teachers go first, regardless of how well they did their jobs.
In January, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed to change the outdated state law that prevents schools from considering anything other than how long a teacher has worked in the school system in the layoff process. Last week, state Sen. Bob Huff, R-Glendora, proposed legislation, SB 955, that would allow schools to make staffing decisions based on effectiveness without regard to seniority.
For years, the Education Trust has worked to close the gaps in opportunity and achievement that affect our communities of color and students in poverty. Staff stability and teacher quality are critical elements of school success, particularly for the many high-poverty and high-need schools that serve California’s poorest students, English learners and students of color.
Because these schools are more likely to have less senior teachers, the state’s existing quality-blind law on layoffs
causes great churn in their staffs, forcing out many talented teachers. We believe that this cycle must stop and that high-need schools must be protected from the disproportionate impact of teacher layoffs on their staff.
SB 955 takes the first step in this process by permitting local schools to make their own staffing decisions that place a higher priority on teacher effectiveness — shown to be the single most important school-based factor in determining student achievement— versus years of service. This approach has several benefits, including recognizing that skills, talent and results matter in addition to experience.
Most important, quality-based layoff rules would allow schools to protect their best teachers at a time when great teachers are more important than ever. And, rather than being a state mandate, the bill provides districts the flexibility to make these decisions based on an assessment of their students’ needs.
Until we construct a solution to the boom and bust cycle of California state budgets, teacher layoffs are likely to continue. That is all the more reason for the Legislature to support the changes in SB 955 and give school districts the tools to make fair and rational staffing decisions that are in the interests of students.
It is critical that policy makers take action to promptly address the impact of seniority-based employment decisions on high-poverty and high-need schools before another annual cohort of great, young teachers is forced out of the classroom by an outdated system that does not put students first.
ARUN RAMANATHAN is executive director of Education Trust-West. He wrote this article for this newspaper.
Entry filed under: Uncategorized. Tags: .
1.
Candace Hamilton | April 22, 2010 at 12:22 am
Fear. Pure, unadulterated fear. That is what motivates people to do everything they can to make sure that SB955 does not pass, and that teacher seniority continues to be the sole reason for determining layoffs.
Honestly, how can those of us in the profession continue to believe that we can get away with being evaluated on a three-word system (Poor, Fair, Satisfactory) when we know that almost every other profession is evaluated on the quality of their work and accomplishments?
Yes, you are saying, but then that would mean I’d have to teach to the test. Isn’t that what you’re doing now – or at least what you should be doing? The “test” measures state standards learned by the students, and since we are to be teaching the content of the standards, that would be the thing to continue doing.
You know what? It is scary to think that I may not be as good of a teacher as I think I am and shouldn’t that spur me on to be better? To figure out what I could do to improve my teaching? It sure can’t hurt. I want people to know that I’m really good at my job and I certainly cannot do that with an evaluation that rates me as a “satisfactory” teacher.