Published: Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Even modest reform is being stonewalled
The shrinking state budget virtually guarantees teacher layoffs in the fall. While a ballot proposal to raise more money may emerge, it faces long odds. Pink slips will be distributed.
That has a lot of people worried. A bipartisan group of lawmakers has introduced legislation that lets school administrators reduce staffing in a way that keeps the best teachers in the classroom. Right now, layoffs are handled by seniority -- last hired, first fired, with no regard for teacher performance. A pair of bills (HB 1609 and SB 5399) would create a performance-based system for staff reductions.
The legislation calls for making layoff decisions based on teachers' average evaluation ratings for the most recent two years (one year if only one is available). Teachers with the lowest average evaluations get laid off first. Seniority, rather than being the sole criterion, comes into play only in case of a tie, when two teachers have the same evaluation scores.
Research unequivocally demonstrates that seniority-based reduction in force (RIF) policies deprive students of some of their best teachers.
A February report by The New Teacher Project summarizes the situation across the nation well: "Quality-blind layoff policies threaten to make this year's layoffs catastrophic. Talented new teachers will lose their jobs while less effective teachers remain. More job losses will be necessary to meet budget reduction goals, because the least senior teachers are also the lowest paid. And, as is all too common, the most disadvantaged students will be hit hardest, because they tend to have the newest teachers."
In addition, as a report from the University of Washington's Center for Education Data & Research points out, "strict adherence to seniority would require at least some districts to lay off teachers in high-demand subject areas, like math and special education." The CEDR analysis reports that in eight of the ten largest school districts in the state, seniority is the sole determinant of which teachers get laid off.
The state's largest teachers' union, the Washington Education Association, remains committed to seniority, a guarantor of job security if not a predictor of achievement. So far, the group has been successful. Though supported by prominent education groups, including the state PTA and the League of Education Voters, the performance-based RIF bills have gone nowhere in the Legislature, receiving just one public hearing in the House.
Not long ago, policymakers vowed an end to an unsustainable status quo. The governor says the times call for transformation and reform. She's right. Yet, her education proposals remain stalled. There's been no significant progress on pension reform or fixing the disparity between public and private sector health care benefits. The decades-long debates about graduation standards, charter schools and accountability continue to fester as lawmakers vacillate and the union stonewalls.
And now a sensible proposal to retain the best teachers has yet to make it out of the gate. Opposition to the measure is reflexive, not thoughtful. The proposed legislation is far from radical. It's not an attack on teachers or collective bargaining.
It's necessary because the current system fails students. After an extensive review of teacher layoff data in our state, CEDR researchers Dan Goldhaber and Roddy Theobald conclude, "While the simplicity and transparency of a seniority based system certainly has advantages, it is hard to argue that it is a system in the best interest of student achievement."
The public knows better. Last January, the Partnership for Learning and the Excellent Schools Now Coalition surveyed 500 Washington voters on education issues.
A remarkable 81 percent of those polled agreed that "if a district is facing layoffs, teachers should be retained based on their performance in raising student achievement, not how many years they have been teaching." To gauge intensity, pollsters look at the gap between the "strong agree" and "strong disagree" responses: 63 percent strongly agreed, just 6 percent expressed strong disagreement.
Those are the kind of numbers that get initiative sponsors excited.
With the latest reduction in the revenue forecast there's again talk about putting a tax measure on the ballot to restore funding cuts. When even modest reform proposals are stifled by special interests, there's no chance of passing a tax hike.
On the other hand, a vote on that performance-based RIF looks promising.
Richard S. Davis, president of the Washington Research Council, writes on public policy, economics and politics. His e-mail address is rsdavis@simeonpartners.com.
That has a lot of people worried. A bipartisan group of lawmakers has introduced legislation that lets school administrators reduce staffing in a way that keeps the best teachers in the classroom. Right now, layoffs are handled by seniority -- last hired, first fired, with no regard for teacher performance. A pair of bills (HB 1609 and SB 5399) would create a performance-based system for staff reductions.
The legislation calls for making layoff decisions based on teachers' average evaluation ratings for the most recent two years (one year if only one is available). Teachers with the lowest average evaluations get laid off first. Seniority, rather than being the sole criterion, comes into play only in case of a tie, when two teachers have the same evaluation scores.
Research unequivocally demonstrates that seniority-based reduction in force (RIF) policies deprive students of some of their best teachers.
A February report by The New Teacher Project summarizes the situation across the nation well: "Quality-blind layoff policies threaten to make this year's layoffs catastrophic. Talented new teachers will lose their jobs while less effective teachers remain. More job losses will be necessary to meet budget reduction goals, because the least senior teachers are also the lowest paid. And, as is all too common, the most disadvantaged students will be hit hardest, because they tend to have the newest teachers."
In addition, as a report from the University of Washington's Center for Education Data & Research points out, "strict adherence to seniority would require at least some districts to lay off teachers in high-demand subject areas, like math and special education." The CEDR analysis reports that in eight of the ten largest school districts in the state, seniority is the sole determinant of which teachers get laid off.
The state's largest teachers' union, the Washington Education Association, remains committed to seniority, a guarantor of job security if not a predictor of achievement. So far, the group has been successful. Though supported by prominent education groups, including the state PTA and the League of Education Voters, the performance-based RIF bills have gone nowhere in the Legislature, receiving just one public hearing in the House.
Not long ago, policymakers vowed an end to an unsustainable status quo. The governor says the times call for transformation and reform. She's right. Yet, her education proposals remain stalled. There's been no significant progress on pension reform or fixing the disparity between public and private sector health care benefits. The decades-long debates about graduation standards, charter schools and accountability continue to fester as lawmakers vacillate and the union stonewalls.
And now a sensible proposal to retain the best teachers has yet to make it out of the gate. Opposition to the measure is reflexive, not thoughtful. The proposed legislation is far from radical. It's not an attack on teachers or collective bargaining.
It's necessary because the current system fails students. After an extensive review of teacher layoff data in our state, CEDR researchers Dan Goldhaber and Roddy Theobald conclude, "While the simplicity and transparency of a seniority based system certainly has advantages, it is hard to argue that it is a system in the best interest of student achievement."
The public knows better. Last January, the Partnership for Learning and the Excellent Schools Now Coalition surveyed 500 Washington voters on education issues.
A remarkable 81 percent of those polled agreed that "if a district is facing layoffs, teachers should be retained based on their performance in raising student achievement, not how many years they have been teaching." To gauge intensity, pollsters look at the gap between the "strong agree" and "strong disagree" responses: 63 percent strongly agreed, just 6 percent expressed strong disagreement.
Those are the kind of numbers that get initiative sponsors excited.
With the latest reduction in the revenue forecast there's again talk about putting a tax measure on the ballot to restore funding cuts. When even modest reform proposals are stifled by special interests, there's no chance of passing a tax hike.
On the other hand, a vote on that performance-based RIF looks promising.
Richard S. Davis, president of the Washington Research Council, writes on public policy, economics and politics. His e-mail address is rsdavis@simeonpartners.com.
Comments
(