"No one really had an answer" to dealing with the question of layoffs, and whether they should be dictated entirely by seniority. Reallly? Is the question THAT hard? Who thinks, in 2011, that longevity should be the SOLE criterion for deciding who stays and who goes, if we want to deliver the highest quality service to our children? Is this question THAT hard to answer?

The only thing that would make this question difficult is if we are unable to distinguish between good teaching a bad teaching. Folks, this is not rocket science. Teachers know. Parents know. Kids know. We CAN make it into measurable criteria that would withstand court challenges, if necessary. We do it in virtually every other field of endeavor.

This unnecessary anguish is hurting us as a nation. Moreover, it affects children from disadvantaged backgrounds more, as they are much more likely to have the least effective teachers dumped on them.

what Pianoboy said.

Teacher unions have to face the new reality, and compromise, or quit trying to make the case they work for kids, and just blatantly say they work for teachers, period.

The Geezer

Maybe you two should ask yourselves how those seniority provisions got into teacher contracts in the first place, because it's clear that neither of you has a clue, about that or much else.

They aren't meant to "protect bad teachers." They're meant to protect GOOD teachers. They're in there because before they were, principals, superintendents, and administrators were able to make up reasons to fire, lay off, or assign teachers for reasons other than competence or effectiveness.

Teachers were fired, laid off, or reassigned because they were black, or white, or gay, or straight. Or because they asked too many questions. Or because they filed grievances. Or because principals wanted to reward their friends or relatives. Or because some parent with power in the community was sore because little Muffy got a C.

Or because someone didn't like a teacher's POLITICS! Or lifestyle.

Seniority clauses are the result of years of trial and error, and years of discussion between teachers and administrators. They have endured because a teacher's years of service are down there in black and white, and cannot be manipulated or interpreted at anyone's whim.

Every other method of reducing the teacher workforce has failed! Don't you get that? I make no claim that seniority is always fair; it has its tradeoffs like every other method. But it has proven better than the alternatives, because it is the LEAST EXPENSIVE to administer in teacher and administrator hours and resources.

Ask yourselves why the attacks on seniority. It's because the corporate backers of the education "reform" movement, including the funders of the phony "grassroots" organization Stand For Children (sorry, Jordan, you're a gullible dupe), know that the biggest obstacle in the path to their hostile takeover of public education is organized educators.

They'll all tell you that "younger, more enthusiastic" teachers are by definition more effective than their more experienced colleagues. It might be true in some cases; by and large it's a lie. Experience counts for plenty.

What they WON'T tell you is how they expect to attract and maintain the best available teachers in our public schools, when the effect of their agenda would be to erode and eliminate teachers' job security and bargaining power.

They won't tell you that because they don't CARE if they attract and maintain the best available teachers. They want them docile and mobile -- here today, gone tomorrow -- and unorganized. Because they want your kids to think that's the norm. They don't want your kids to think for themselves or to speak for themselves, or -- heaven forbid -- to organize their workplaces someday. They want your kids to learn to fill in the bubbles in the multiple choice tests -- which they'll sell to your school district for $10 mil or so.

And they're doing you a favor. They're giving you a discount. You should be grateful.

What ivan said.

"Stand for Children" really means "Stand against Unions." They do not advocate for funding from the state, just union-weakening. It is sad that they have fooled some people who do care about children, whose efforts would be better placed somewhere else.

I do totally agree with Royer on prioritizing classrooms in the funding process. Unfortunately the reverse seems to be happening, with the state wanting to spend 20M on teacher evaluation systems (standardized testing and databases.) Prioritize your volunteer time that way too, Jordan. Quit Stand and go sit and read with some kids.

ps: I was at that meeting and I resent your attribution of one person's "-ism" comments to the whole room. I thought it was a great meeting and was just getting good with all the pointed questions - what you call "degeneration."

Also, you could have explained that the reason "nothing can be done" about seniority is that a 3-year contract has just been signed. Scott might still be in office in 3 years but I doubt the other two will be.

Every time I see Stand for Children in the news, they are associated with the question of seniority and RIFs. Maybe they are doing good things too, but they seem to spend a fair bit of time picking fights with the teacher's union about an issue that parents and individual teachers have no control over. It's a turn-off, to be frank, it suggests a hidden agenda.

Wow ivan and eyesopen way to just go and fully illustrate the kind of irrational response Jordan laments.
Why the attacks on seniority? Because while no one honestly believes that the seniority provisions were put in place to protect bad teachers that is one of the consequences. Every school has a handful of teachers who parents pray their kids won’t get stuck with. As pianoboy said it’s no mystery who these teachers are, yet they keep their jobs year after year. In most working environments, if firing them was too difficult they would at least make the top of the list for any RIF. That, not some corporate conspiracy is why parents are frustrated with the notion that seniority trumps skill when RIF decisions are made. So unless you think keeping bad teachers in our classrooms is a good thing, please take the tin foil hats off and offer some constructive suggestions as to how we identify and reward our best teachers and weed out the teachers who are no-longer willing to do their jobs effectively.

@normfox: Your eyes must have glazed over the part where I said "I make no claim that seniority is always fair; it has its tradeoffs like every other method."

Let's see you and pianoboy identify some "bad teachers," and let's see you explain to us what makes them bad. "Everybody knows" doesn't count. "Everybody knows" is ignorant b--- s---, spread by ignorant b--- s------s.

The FACT is that 95 percent of teachers who can't cut it, for whatever reason, are weeded out in the first 3-5 years, through peer observation, through counseling, through collaborative efforts of peers, principals, and school administrators, and, most important, WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS, not at somebody's whim because "everybody knows."

And here's another clue for you: Can you guess who LEAST wants incompetent or underperforming teachers in our schools? Are you ready? It's OTHER TEACHERS. Because slackers in their buildings make THEIR jobs harder and THEIR lives more miserable.

No union contract I have ever heard of lacks provisions for dismissal. Principals and administrators who follow these provisions to the letter, and who document for termination properly, will get underperformers out of the school far more often than not. In Seattle Public Schools alone, 24 teachers were dismissed for cause in the previous academic year. Kind of blows a hole in your "union exists to protect incompetents" myth, doesn't it?

When I was a union representative (not for teachers) my job was to see that the language of our contracts was followed, so that employees were not railroaded out of jobs unfairly. If procedures were followed, and if the employers had the goods on the employees, they were gone.

I wasn't defending "bad employees." I was defending and enforcing the contract against misapplication, because that was what I was hired to do by our members, whose dues paid my salary. It's called the "duty of fair representation," and it is required by the National Labor Relations Act -- in other words, by federal law. Do you have a problem with that?

Maybe you think teachers should be railroaded out of their jobs on the basis of "everybody knows." Maybe you think you and pianoboy should be able to walk into any school and say "you, you, and you, out." Because "everybody knows." Maybe I have a hard time taking you seriously when you call *my* response "irrational."

Thank you all for posting your comments. These conversations need to continue and I believe we can be having them constructively and solutions-focused. As Seattle Director for Stand for Children, I encourage all of you to meet with me for coffee and learn more about our work and “member-driven” organizing model. Stand for Children has multiple issues that we are currently working on both statewide and locally. Issues that go through a member vote for approval. Who are our members? Parents, educators (principals, teachers and support staff) and others concerned with the state of our education. Danny, you’re absolutely right. Unfortunately, our multiple areas of focus are not being mentioned. Teacher-focused reforms are getting the most air time in the media and other important issues are getting lost in the shuffle. What are the other Stand member approved priorities? To name a few: Funding the updated Washington High School Graduation Requirements, Protecting Levy Equalization, Continuing to fund pilots of the Basic Education Support Team (BEST) grant program that provides comprehensive training and mentoring for first and second year teachers, Creating high-performing school cultures by empowering principals to choose their staff and teachers to choose their school, ensuring the teacher and principal evaluation pilots get a second year of funding. At the local level, members are working on actions teams focused on improved professional development for educators, early childhood supports and cultural competency in our schools. Meet with me, learn for yourself how Stand for Children works and if after our conversation, you decide we’re not the group for you, find one that will support your priorities. Contact me at avillegas@stand.org or call (206) 383-7942. Together we can make our schools better for all kids!

normfox, if you read carefully, I did not actually take a stand on seniority. My point was that Jordan did not fully explain the reason "nothing can be done" (which is really "nothing can be done for three years"), resulting in pianoboy's uninformed rant. I thought Ivan did a terrific job in illustrating that seniority is not a simple issue.

I do, however, believe that unions, or more specifically a balance of power between unions and school "management" is good for kids and their parents.

And sorry, Stand, most of your initiatives seem wrong-headed to me.

They did not cut 85 central jobs last year. That was a sham. Carr should know that, she has seen the revised spreadsheet that shows most of those folks were simply reclassified and that there were at most 19 jobs cut.

Is central top heavy? Yes. It was and it continues to be top heavy. Right now it is over 6% of the budget. Smith-Blum pointed out last night that the norm for urban districts of our size is more like 4%.

There are problems with our education systems, but the solutions will not be found in the teachers' contract.

The solution will be found by identifying and addressing the root causes of the academic achievement gap. Surely everyone is for that, right? But neither the current school district administrations nor the education reform movement work for this. What's up with that?

The solution will be found in early and effective interventions for students working below grade level. Surely everyone is for that, right? But neither the current school district administrations nor the education reform movement work for this. What's up with that?

I'm no fan of the status quo, but I don't see the Education Reform movement (as practiced by Gates, Broad, Stand for Children, or the League of Education Voters) working for anything effective or positive either. I don't see anyone but other grassroots community activists doing the sort of rational, productive talk about education that Mr. Royer wants or advocating the sort of rational, productive work that would make a meaningful difference.

What's up with that?

Great discussion here! I invite you all to keep it going at a live broadcast and streamed event coming up hosted by CityClub, The Seattle Channel and Town Hall.

On Thursday, February 10th, Seattle Channel host C.R. Douglas will lead a live televised discussion “in the round” featuring Superintendent Dr. Maria Goodloe-Johnson, School Board Member Kay Smith-Blum, PTSA Interim President Lauren McGuire, a representative from the Seattle Education Association and other leaders, critics and stakeholders, including parents, students, and YOU.

For more details and to register click here!
http://www.seattlecityclub.org/20110210

Coolpapa -

You either don't know or have chosen to ignore the fact that the "Education reform movement" - the organizations you named and others - has put great effort into supporting early childhood education in this state. Early childhood education is the ultimate intervention to get at those root causes of the achievement gap and prevent it in the first place.

For students who are already in that achievement gap, what more rational and productive solution is there than making sure they have the best possible teachers educating them? If you do not have effective teachers in the classroom, I guarantee those students who need help will not be identified and no interventions will be made. In those classrooms, the gap widens.

It's interesting how little decision makers and the general public know about what is currently going on in schools. I keep reading bombastic editorials and comments condemning teachers unions. I sincerely doubt the majority of teachers agree with the entire union position. I certainly don't, but I'm weary of the educational reform efforts I keep hearing and reading about. For the record, I certainly do not support protecting marginal or ineffective teachers. They are an embarrassment to the profession, and they make my work life a lot harder than it needs to be.

Consider the following reasons why I don't trust the proponents of the educational reform efforts:

* Even though I would be considered a highly effective teacher (97% passage on the 10th gr. state writing exam and 94% on the reading exam last year), I am very weary of linking my pay to test scores. This year I was assigned the least engaged, hardest to motivate and worst academically prepared sophomores that I've encountered in my career. My gut feeling going in to testing season is that my scores will drop by 10-15% despite trying anything I can think of to bring these kids up to standard. I was assigned these kids because of my past success. Penalizing me for taking some of the hardest kids in my school removes all incentives other than intrinsic motivation to take them. Compensation plans based on test scores will set up huge turf wars in schools as teachers jockey to cherry pick the best kids. This is an approach that will keep teachers from coming up with workable building wide solutions.

* Principals do not treat all employees equally and biases exist. Every building has the selected few that seem to get continually dumped on and those who continually get rewarded. We need a compensation plan using another value added solution other than test scores.

* Teaching is not a job skill that translates well to the private sector. Until we have a solution that provides for retraining and some transitional pay, it will be incredibly difficult for marginal teachers to make a career change. Remember, most teachers don't have huge nest eggs that could cover a year of more of time to retrain.

* Most importantly, why should teachers trust Governor Gregoire or the legislature? There have been more years that our COLAs have been suspended than years that we have received them. Our standard of living is continually dropping despite working a lot more hours per week than before. I have 4-5 students more per class now over my classes in 2007. I have a lot more special ed students with absolutely no support. All of this adds to a huge increase in my workload. One writing assignment given out to five classes took me 23 hours to grade outside of my regular work day.

* Past ed reform efforts such as the Professional Certification and last year's new requirement to extend instructional hours only add to our workloads and we have never received an actual raise to compensate us for this time. I'm paid for 35 hours per hour as a full time teacher. I work 50-55 hours per week, and the legislature is looking at cutting out step increases and we haven't received a COLA increase since the fall of 2008. National Board bonuses are probably suspended too. There are teachers who will take $7-8,000 hits next year alone. That is well above the 3% hits state employees are getting.

There is a finite number of hours that I'm willing to work. I had two weekends without work between August and winter break. There have been numerous weeks with back to back 12-14 hour days. Some prioritization needs to go on, and the legislature needs to get real about paying us .

I went to a Publicola event with the Seattle legislative delegation late last month. I asked Rep. Reuven Carlyle when teachers could expect to receive higher pay for the huge increases in our work loads. He was incredibly condescending toward me telling me I'm lucky to have a job. The funny thing is if there was a protest against WalMart's pay practices or the sweat shop practices in third world countries, Rep. Carlyle and the other D legislators would be in the mix working the crowd and protesting. They are truly hypocritical as their expectations for teachers are very similar to what Wal Mart has historically done to their employees.

So ivan once again you both miss and prove the main point of this piece. I never said or insinuated that the “union exists to protect incompetents”. I said it was an unintended consequence of using seniority as the only metric when deciding on a RIF. I am well aware that good teachers don’t want bad teachers in schools any more than parents do. I provided an explanation of why parents view RIFs as an opportunity to fix this problem, and asked for constructive suggestions of alternatives from teachers who disagree. You, yet again, chose to attack.

Teachers need to stop viewing parents who don’t agree 100% with the union as the enemy. Ostensibly we both want the same thing better schools for our kids. So why not for once engage us in constructive debate rather than bash us for “union busting”

The “bad teachers” I’ve run across and am referring to are those who may have at one time been good but are now largely just showing up and going through the motions. Using the same lesson plans for the last 10+ years; not challenging the kids who are ahead of the curve and not helping those who are behind. When you talk to parents there’s a universal agreement that you don’t want you get to get stuck in their class. When you talk to teachers about them they lower their eyes and don’t say much of anything. So yes, everybody knows who they are.

Star80, thanks, your post is a step in the right direction and a breath of fresh air. I agree with you that gauging performance solely on final test scores would be as disastrous as unproductive, but I do feel that a system of objective metrics would go a long way toward solving problems like who gets laid off, and how to provide stellar teachers with financial incentives to stick with it. What sort of metrics do you think would be a good judge of a teacher’s performance?

Star80, Carlyle was not incredibly condescending to you when you complained about your COLA and your workload. He paused before he answered because, I think, your rather ranting complaint seemed a bit out of place during a discussion of the cuts that are coming to health and human services. He simply said that many people are worrying about having a job. You should keep in mind the environment in which you're complaining. This isn't the 90s anymore, and although you do have difficult working conditions, comparing the schools' pay practices to WalMart and portraying your job in such dire terms is a little jarring, especially to those of us who are seeing increasingly long lines at food banks and who have friends and relatives without health insurance. Please, the next time you talk or write in public, use a little sensitivity.

@normfox: What you call an "attack" is a rejoinder from a public school parent who is sick and tired of hearing BS, and not so inclined to tolerate it.

"Going through the motions?" What qualifies you to make that judgment? Are you the principal? Is a teacher "not challenging" your child? Go in for a conference and tell the teacher so. Talk to the principal.

Is the teacher "using the same lesson plan for the past 10 years?" I doubt it very much, but hey, what if it's true? Talk to the principal. "Not helping those who get behind?" How would you know?

Yeah, talk to the parents, because "everybody knows." Except when they don't.

Are teachers perfect? Hell no. Are they above criticism? Certainly not. Did I have my share of teachers I didn't like? You bet I did. Have I had differences with any of my kid's teachers? Sure. What did I do about it? I engaged, that's what I did. I held up my end, my kid held up her end, and the teacher eventually held up her end, too.

That's the "objective metric" you're looking for -- mutual satisfaction that all parties have performed responsibly and in good faith. Don't look for a guaranteed outcome, because there isn't one. An "objective metric" not some test worked up by some multimillion-dollar corporation, peddled by cronies of the superintendent, granted a no-bid contract to administer them, and walking off with a big chunk of our tax dollars. There's hardly anything "objective" about that.

Normfox-

I don't have a specific idea on how to evaluate teacher's performance. A solution should be one that can include the entire school community as effective schools have teachers who collaborate with each other and communicate well. What I do know is that teachers need to be invited to any discussion and actually listened to which would be a breath of fresh air. The general public and members of the legislature (and Lynne Varner from the Times) seemingly talk to few teachers. If they did, they would discover that most of us work part of our holiday breaks (uncompensated of course) as well as late nights and weekends. I have to as my job cannot possibly be done in the timeframe I'm paid for.

We can create tons of ways to measure teacher effectiveness, but if the principal isn't willing to use them they won't mean a thing. Face it teaching draws people who typically demonstrate empathy. Principals come from the teacher ranks. If the principal has to deal what has been deemed an ineffective teacher, they might not be willing to fire the teacher if it will result in poverty.

I'd hold off on a widespread reform package until the legislature and governor can pay for it on a sustaining basis. I just dropped out of the National Board Certification program. I had already put in $1,500 of my own funds into it along countless hours, but I would have been on the hook for $2,500 more with no assistance. I'm guessing a lot of other teachers will also choose not to seek this route. Why should they? Teachers received yet another compensation promise that will be broken. The state DESPERATELY needs to rebuild trust from teachers.

The legislature and the governor want a Mercedes luxury sedan for Hyundai money. Adding more unfunded mandates will only serve the burn out our teachers.

Here is what I would do to get great results for a relatively modest price:

* Every legislator with an interest in ed. reform should spend an entire workday including the hours after the contract day shadowing a teacher. I personally would like to host Rep. Reuven Carlyle and see if he still holds his arrogant, ill informed views after shadowing me for a day (up to 10 PM some nights).

* Currently we socially promote 8th graders to high school regardless of whether they mastered the curriculum in their core classes (English, Math, Social Studies and Science). We have significant numbers of high school freshmen and sophomores who aren't ready for the work in their classes, because they flunked the core classes in middle school. They can't do simple mathematical computations or craft a basic paragraph. This sets these kids up for immediate failure when they hit high school.

This affects everyone who is in the high school class, because even 3-4 of these students can dictate what the teacher can teach, and it also impacts classroom behavior. If we adopted a mandatory credit system in junior high and middle schools where students had to demonstrate minimal proficiency in the core subjects, this situation would improve quickly. This means the state would need to fund summer school classes for these kids. Currently, we do not retain these kids because we can't force families to pay for summer school.

* The legislature should request a performance audit of the state's schools from the auditor's office. There is so little knowledge of how our schools work among our government officials. They need better information before introducing any more reform packages. We're all paid on the same salary scale, yet my workload is exponentially higher than a P.E. teacher.

* Good teaching requires time for teachers to reflect and collaborate with colleagues. Every time the legislature adds to the instruction day or adds onerous certification requirements, you take time away from teachers to perform these important functions. There are only so hours in a day that I am willing to work. As we get reach that limit, I will be relying more on worksheets and textbook assignments. I've always taken on tutoring or extra duties at work for extra money because our pay isn't adequate. This won't end until I'm adequately paid.

The immediate answer is the legislature and governor need to do more listening to teachers and prioritize what they truly want given our fiscal mess. Until they create a sustainable financial plan that better weathers economic downturns, we will continually live in this mess.

"they are protecting the whole status quo and resisting any and all efforts to take risks and innovate"

You could randomly shave the head of every 10th child. It's innovative and risky!

Or you could discard the bad ideas without trying them, because they're bad ideas.

Wilbur_Watson writes that "the US is at the top of the global chart of money spent per child on K-12 education"

I challenge the validity of this statement. The average spending per student in the US is seriously skewed by some students who are remarkably expensive to serve. Other countries don't have the same commitment we have to universal education. Our education costs include students with disabilities, includes English language learners and includes a significant number of unmotivated students coming from some very unsupportive backgrounds.

Moreover, our students are nearly all on an academic track rather than a vocational ones. Other nations divert a large number of students into vocational pathways instead of college-bound academic paths.

Rather than comparing the average cost of a student's education we should compare the typical cost of a student's education. Here in Seattle the amount spent on typical students is a fraction of the average spending per student.

Does anyone buy teacher39's claim that the Education Reform Movement is focused on early education rather than teacher contracts? Anyone?