You wouldn’t travel a long distance in your car without strapping on a seatbelt.
So why do you think teachers should spend 30-plus years in the classroom without seniority?
Everywhere you look, billionaires are paying millionaires in government to pass laws to cut taxes, slash funding and find cheaper ways to run public schools for pleb kids like yours and mine. And that often means finding ways to weaken protections for teachers, fire those with the most experience and replace them with glorified WalMart greeters.
“Hello. Welcome to SchoolMart. Please plug into your iPad and begin today’s lesson.”
This is class warfare cloaked as a coupon. It’s sabotage described as savings.
And the only way they get away with it is because reasonable people buy the steaming load of manure they’re selling.
MYTH: Seniority with Tenure means a Job for Life
Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of teachers out of work.
Tell that to all the optimistic go getters who prance out of college ready to change the world as teachers and fizzle out during the first five years.
Tell it to the handful of truly terrible teachers who for reasons only they can explain stay in a job they hate through countless interventions and re-trainings until the principal has no choice but to give them their walking papers.
Oh, yes. Teachers DO get fired. I’ve seen it with my own eyes numerous times. And in each case, they truly deserved it.
(Any “bad teachers” still on the job mean there’s a worse administrator somewhere neglecting to do his or her duty.)
So what does “seniority” and “tenure” even mean for teachers?
Basically, it means two things:
(1) If you want to fire a teacher, you have to prove he or she deserves it. That’s tenure.
(2) When public school districts downsize, they can’t just lay off people based on their salaries. That’s seniority.
If you think about it, both of these are good things.
It is not a good work environment for teachers or students when educators can be fired without cause at the whim of incoming administration or radical, newly elected school board members. Teaching is one of the most political professions we have. Tenure shields educators from the winds of partisanship. It allows them to grade children fairly whose parents have connections on the school board, it allows them to speak honestly and openly about school policy, and it empowers them to act in the best interests of their students – all things that otherwise could jeopardize their jobs.
Likewise, seniority stops the budget butchers from making experience and stability a liability.
It stops number crunchers from saying:
Hey, Mrs. Wilson has been here for 25 years. She’s got a shelf full of teaching awards. Parents and students love her. But she’s at the top of the salary scale so she’s gotta go.
I know what you’re going to say: Aren’t there younger teachers who are also outstanding?
Yes. There are.
However, if you put all the best teachers in one group, most of them will be more experienced.
It just makes sense. You get better at something – anything – the more you do it. This could be baking pies, building houses or teaching children how to read and write.
So why don’t we keep the best teachers and get rid of those who aren’t up to their level?
Because determining who’s the best is subjective. And if you let the moneymen decide – POOF! – suddenly the teachers who make the most money will disappear and only the cheapest ones will be left.
Couldn’t you base it on something more universal like student test scores?
Yes, you could, but student test scores are a terrible way to evaluate teachers. If you wanted to get rid of the highest paid employees, all you’d have to do is give them the most struggling students. Suddenly, their students have the worst test scores, and they’re packing up their stuff in little cardboard boxes.
Almost any stat can be gamed.
The only one that is solidly unbiased? Seniority.
You’ve either been here 15 years or you haven’t. There’s not much anyone can do to change that fact.
That’s why it prevents the kind of creative accounting you see from penny pinching number crunchers.
Along with Tenure, Seniority is a safety net. Pure and simple. It helps keep the most qualified teachers in the room with kids. Period.
But look. It’s not perfect.
Neither are seat belts.
If you’re in a car crash on a bridge where it’s necessary to get out of your vehicle quickly before it plunges into the water below, it’s possible your seat belt may make it more difficult to reach safety. This is rather rare, and it doesn’t stop most people from buckling up.
I’ve known excellent teachers who were furloughed while less creative ones were kept on. It does happen.
But if we got rid of seniority, it would happen way more often.
That’s the bottom line.
Instead of finding more leeway to fire more teachers, we should be finding ways to increase school funding – especially at the most under-resourced schools – which, by the way, are the ones where lawmakers most want to eliminate seniority. We should be looking for ways to make downsizing unnecessary. We should be investing in our children and our future.
We’ll never improve the quality of the public school system by firing our way to the bottom. That’s like trying to lose weight by hacking at yourself with a straight razor. It just won’t work.
We need to commit to public schools. We need to commit to public school students. And the best way to do that is to support the teachers who devote their lives showing up every day to help them learn.
***
This article originally was published on Gadfly on the Wall Blog.
And if you liked this article, the author has written a book, “Gadfly on the Wall: A Public School Teacher Speaks Out on Racism and Reform,” coming out on Nov. 28 from Garn Press.
