Layoffs, Smayoffs

Failed teacher and failed superintendent Michelle Rhee just hates - HATES! - teacher seniority:

Kristen Briggs was one of about a thousand educators who lost their jobs teaching in Philadelphia schools this year. But to her students, she was much more than a statistic.

Briggs, who taught special education at Lincoln High School, is the kind of teacher any principal would hasten to hire - and never willingly let go. But Briggs' principal didn't have a choice in the matter.

She was laid off under an antiquated and harmful policy known as "last in, first out," or "LIFO" for short. It requires that when layoffs occur, the last teachers hired are the first fired - regardless of their effectiveness as teachers.

When they're not comparing themselves to Nelson Mandela, so does 50can:

In Minnesota’s budget crunch, teacher layoffs are inevitable. School districts face million-dollar deficits, and salaries are the bulk of their budgets. Many school districts are out of options.

When layoffs are a must, our priority should be keeping the best teachers. But we don’t look at how good or bad a teacher is at all when deciding which teachers to keep and which to let go. Minnesota is one of only 14 states that require districts to use seniority as the deciding factor in layoff decisions.

Are any of you as bothered as I am by the casual tone these corporate "reformers" take to layoffs? That they just can't be helped? This in a time of massive income inequity and  historically low taxation on the wealthy?

50can is actually quite upfront about the fact that this is really about money:

Seniority-based layoffs lead to more job losses. Because nearly all teachers are paid more for each year of experience, seniority-based layoff policies require districts to retain the highest-paid teachers while letting go of lower-paid teachers. More teachers must lose their jobs for districts to meet their budget targets than if layoffs were based primarily on effectiveness, with a mix of new and experienced teachers receiving pink slips.10 If a district has to close a $10 million deficit, it would have to lay off 200 new teachers who each cost the district $50,000. But it would have to let go just 133 more experienced teachers who cost the district $75,000 each.11

Ah - the problem is that senior teachers make more. Do you think the corporate "reformers" would be as passionate about LIFO if this wasn't the case?

I'll leave aside the huge problems with identifying "good" and "bad" teachers, the morale destroying implications of breaking decades-old promises to teachers, the corporate-fueled dismissal of collective bargaining rights, and ask only this:

You corporate "reformers" say you want more good teachers like Kristen Briggs in the classroom. Do you think you are helping to recruit more people like her to education by taking such a casual attitude toward layoffs?