You know what would save teachers' jobs AND help the environment? If Seattle would stop busing kids all over town. The gas savings would be astronomical. Imagine if kids went to their closest designated schools? Most of them could walk, if not ride their bikes. Obesity goes down, exercised kids pay better attention in schools, we garage all those gas- and diesel-hogging (and *seriously* polluting) buses, and everyone wins--assuming parents don't start driving instead and assuming the district can ensure equivalent access to quality and services at each school (which it should be doing anyway). The drivers don't need to lose their jobs, either: deploy them as crossing guards and road safety monitors on Seattle's numerous streets without sidewalks.

The district is reimbursed by the state for buses. If they stopped businng, the money would also stop...

If I understand you correctly, you're referring to using the existing evaluation report system to determine who gets laid off, correct?

And, if you use that system, it will result in more veteran teachers being laid off than rookies, correct?

Why do you assume veteran teachers, as a group, will be getting poorer evaluations? Do you have any data to back that up?

He doesn't have any data. You have to remember that St. Clair is on the payroll of the Evergreen "Freedom" Foundation, which has a core mission of destroying public employee unions, especially teachers' unions. Therefore anything he says on the subject of education must be seen through this filter.

I doubt that Crosscut is paying St. Clair to write his anti-teacher propaganda. If anything, it might be the other way around. But the EFF damn sure is paying him. Ignore him and move on.

Ivan, you can try to ignore St. Clair, but you can't ignore the more than 1,000 parents who are legitimately concerned about quality education for their children.

This isn't a case of EFF vs. the teachers' union. This is a case about parents wanting to make sure that the best teachers are kept.

Focus on what really matters -- making our public schools better for our kids.

Is there any evidence that the seniority system is the number one problem in public schools today? Personally, I don't think it's even on the top ten list!

I totally support anybody who's trying to make schools better, but picking a fight with the SEA about something that is of *paramount importance to them* is not going to help. If there was ever a good time to take on the seniority system, it's not in the middle of massive layoffs when everybody is scared and defensive. I think the CPPS is wasting its time agitating about somethig that is determined exclusively in negotiations between the district and the SEA.

I can't help wondering if CPPS is being used as a stalking horse for some other group here, since their approach is so obviously unproductive.

Seniority = experience. With all due respect to the two 15-year olds who agree with P-diddy St. Clair, in most places I've worked, experience is seen to be something to be prized not trashed.

Why not address the root of the problem, which is why are we having the layoffs in the first place? If education in this state is a top priority, then funding for it should be a top priority as well. In this context arguing with unions over who gets fired first is so much wasted energy.

I am a Seattle Public Schools parent, too, tiresias, and I am every bit as concerned about getting my daughter the best education my tax dollars can buy.

Unfortunately, when teachers have to be laid off, seniority is the best of a sorry lot of options. CPPS has chosen the wrong target. They should be focusing instead on principals and administrators who are either too lazy or too incompetent to conduct proper and rigorous teacher evaluations.

Teachers insist on seniority being the basis for layoffs because it removes arbitrariness and capriciousness from the process. Do YOU want teachers retained whose chief ability is sucking up to their principals? I don't trust principals as far as I can throw them.

A corporate absolutist like Scott St. Clair has no problem, with this, of course. He is an elitist and an economic royalist, and the very idea that employees could band together and show some strength is anathema to him and his fellow reactionaries.

The notion pushed by CPPS, that experience on the one hand, and energy and commitment on the other, are somehow mutually exclusive among teachers is a pernicious fraud.

Danny, the seniority system is one of the top problems in public schools because it sacrifices good results (merit) for mere longevity. And while longevity may mean more experience, it does not necessarily equate to meaningful experience that translates into teaching methods with good results.

Ivan, many times the school administration cannot conduct proper and rigorous evaluations because the terms of those evaluations are collectively bargained.

If you are concerned about removing arbitrary and capricious decisions from the process, why not use objective testing data from OSPI as at least one factor in a formula for merit-based pay/layoffs?

Give me one good reason why the terms of evaluations should not be bargained collectively. My daughter's TEACHERS, not school administrators, are the ones who interact directly with her -- and with me.

As for using "objective testing data from OSPI" for merit-based layoffs, i say no way. I am damn tired of "teaching to the test."

I stand with the teachers. I reject your positions utterly and completely.

Hmm, so, if I may summarize based on the Comments here:

We should keep Seniority-based layoffs because:

- There's no way to make performance ratings fair.
- Because we don't like the author. He is, variously, "P-Diddy StClair" (PebbleCreek), on the payroll of EFF, a conservative foundation (Ivan), a "corporate absolutist" and "economic royalist" (Ivan)...
- It's the wrong time to "pick this fight" (DannyK)
- Teacher ratings = "teaching to the test" (Ivan)

To decide where you personally stand on this, put the hat on your own head. E.g., Would you ...
- Rather report to a company manager/exec. selected via seniority or via performance ratings?
- Prefer to fly with plane commanded by the older pilot or one with highest pilot performance ratings?
- How about political leaders? Length of time in office or effectiveness?
- Lifeguards?
Why are we even discussing this?

ivan, if you stand with the teachers, then you will continue to reap the mediocre results that we have received from our educational system for years.

Our public education system is failing, and supporting the status quo won't help revive it.

Having the most effective teachers and administrators is one step toward breaking the logjam of educational mediocrity. If we want excellent results, we must have the most effective educators.

Maribago, excellent points!

Maribago's comments reflect utter ignorance of labor-management relationships. Like it or not, teachers have organized for the purpose of collective bargaining, and both the District and the teachers are bound by the resulting labor agreement, which, like all labor agreements, has the force of federal law behind it.

So no group of "concerned parents" gets to abrogate it at their whim. Quit your whining and realize that you're not going to change it, and look for things you can change.

It is a myth and a fraud that seniority and ability are mutually exclusive, and that seniority language in labor agreements always, under any circumstances, protects incompetence. So I'm not interested in debating your false premise.

Are there incompetent, ineffective, underproducing teachers? Of course there are. I never worked in any workplace under any circumstances where there weren't bottom feeders.

Any supervisors or administrators who can't or won't document ineffective employees for termination without violating the terms of the labor agreement don't belong in their jobs. Teachers know who the slackers in their ranks are. All they ask is that the process be fair and that ift follow the letter of the contract. "Concerned parents" should target ineffective, entrenched administrators first. But they're too lazy, and too gullible to do that, when it's easier to bash the unions.

As for my "reaping the mediocre results that we have received from our education system for years," my daughter was a straight-A sudent right through 10th grade, and now is a Dean's list student at the community college level in Running Start.

Is she in Running Start because SPS is mediocre? No. She's there because she can handle the higher level of instruction. SPS prepared her well for the next step, and so did her mother and I.

If your kid isn't learning in school, and you're looking for reasons, the first place to look is in your mirror. Maybe that's where the mediocrity starts.

Some years ago, I was sitting in a meeting with some pretty left-wing people and a question came up about the oversight and evaluation of contract negotiations between teachers' unions and school boards for best practices, ensuring the welfare of the students and teachers as beneficiaries, as opposed to the administration and union itself. The general consensus was that such an evaluation couldn't happen in Washington State, because the politicos wouldn't permit it.

Paul Hill at the Center on Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington has recently posted on his website an evaluation of contracts and high school teacher contracts; http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/view/csr_pubs/261. Interesting read. Scott's piece is a perfectly fair elucidation of the issue. I don't see any discernable "right wing" attitude in this piece, although Scott's certainly capable of it, on other topics.

Trashing each other and/or the author of the piece doesn't necessarily add much to the discourse. And, Ivan, really -- your hyperbolic blaming of parents is no different than blaming the teachers. We have a system in need of overhaul; Rep. Carlyle and others in the freshman legislative class haven't allowed themselves to be cowed by the political correctness and "should nots" associated with the issue. I applaud them and wish them continued success.

Rep. Deb Eddy

Labor agreements good. Collective bargaining good. What's important is what is in the agreements -- and terms of these agreements must change.

If you read the comments again, "ivan", you'll see that no one says more-senior teachers are worse teachers; only that the yardstick should be teacher competence and quality not years-in-the-trenches.

Hard to understand how this is bad for the kids.

Not all pro-union parents agree with the SEA's approach. There's a groundswell of opinion in favor of rating teacher quality and paying big bucks--but only for real performance. The SEA is behind the curve on this. Look around at what is happening in other Chicago, NYC, DC and other districts.

Right-on, Debo.

This topic needs more light and less heat. CPPS isn't advocating that the current contract be abrogated, in how layoffs are determined, rather that the District negotiate for revised contract terms that take personnel evaluations into account when layoffs must occur. Sounds pretty reasonable to this old Democratic leftist.

If personnel evaluations have no role in effecting layoffs, why are they even done? Just another bureaucratic exercise to drive up personnel costs? Let's make sure that evaluations are based on solid criteria and not "favoritism", and then let them play a role in determining layoff order. No, not the ONLY role.

Yes, longevity and experience matter, but they are not the ONLY criteria that matter, and that's a problem (no not the "only" problem...) with the current contract.

(Never thought I'd find myself in this much agreement with Piper Scott, but gotta give credit where it is due)

To help Maribago with her confusion, we're discussing this because as much as some people would like to pretend otherwise, experience matters. It matters in flying a plane (you don't get your license until you have a certain number of hours under your belt), it matters in politics (hence why the most experienced politicians become the highest paid lobbyists) and it matters in teaching.

You're welcome to let the novices teach your kids (or perhaps you home school?), but at least let the rest of us apply some common sense and show respect for the experienced professionals.

And to be fair I referred to the author as "P-Diddy St. Clair" with the correct abbreviation and spacing. He's someone who takes great pride in his various monikers and you should respect that as well.

The problem with this entire thread is that we are discussing the effects instead of the causes of the woes that afflict our public schools.

This "I'm a liberal, but . . ." crap, followed by teacher-bashing, makes me want to puke. Teacher layoffs are occurring because a Democratic governor and a Democratic Legislature (sorry, Deb) flunked the test and failed to adequately fund our public schools. This even after taxpayers in this state voted to fund teacher COLAs and voted to tax themselves to fund smaller class sizes.

Smaller classes work, and smaller schools work. Moreover, we could have the smaller schools, smaller class sizes, and all the advantages that charter school advocates claim they can provide and public schools can't (Pssst -- they lie!), within the present collective bargaining agreements.

Instead, we get bullshit artists in the Legislature and in school districts trying to sell us a corporate model of school governance in an area where it doesn't fit. They use this phony model to starve the schools for the money they need. The bureaucracy skims what money there is off the top, and liberals fight each other over teacher layoffs while reactionaries like St. Clair watch with glee.

We could have better public schools if we had the political will to fund them -- and if we quit treating teachers like dogs.