Should young teachers be given the boot?

In this failing economy, it's hard to turn a corner without hearing a story about the latest job layoff or someone beginning to receive unemployment benefits. As the California budget shortfall grows, Los Angeles Unified School District officials have stated that they feel there is no choice but to start cutting corners where it hurts the public the most -- by laying off teachers.

A proposal at today's school board meeting outlined giving potential layoff notices to 9,000 employees, including 5,500 teachers. However, seniority rules state that the last hired will be the first fired, putting freshman teachers most at risk. Los Angeles Times writers Jason Song and Seema Mehta elaborate:

In L.A. Unified, instructors with less than two years of experience are expected to be given notice first. But some top L.A. Unified officials believe layoffs could rob the district of their most enthusiastic employees, and are trying to find ways to keep them.

"We have invested all this money in these new teachers ... so we should have the ability to retain them," said board member Yolie Flores Aguilar. ...

Districts across the state, including L.A. Unified, are offering early retirement packages to employees, which would help retain younger teachers.

So far, nearly 2,000 L.A. Unified employees have agreed to retire early and the district plans to offer the program again.

Because less experienced teachers are cheaper, a district must lay off more of them to close a budget gap, leading to increased class sizes and the shuffling of classes and instructors.

Do you feel that experience should outweigh youthful and possibly innovative teaching? Or should teacher layoffs be the last thing on the chopping block and administrative jobs should be cut instead? Sound off below.

-- Michelle Castillo

Photo: Teachers protest against proposed budget cuts in January. Credit: Ricardo DeAratanha / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[An LAUSD elementary parent.]

I think that the employees that are closest to the students on a daily basis should be considered the last employees for job cuts. That means teachers and on-campus admin staff should be the most protected. I suspect that there are a lot of administrative jobs that support the major bureaucracy that is LAUSD and I don't hear much about those jobs being eliminated. It seems that only the LAUSD bureaucracy might miss those people and no one else will yet teachers would be missed and are critical. After non-critical admin. staff is cut then look at performance of teachers and cut the poor performing teachers.

[Logan Algie]

A new enthusiastic does not equal an effective teacher. It takes many years to become an effective teacher. It is something that is gained through experience and certainly not in a teacher credential program. Most of what has made me a better teacher over the years is not some "magic bullet" the ivory tower ed. school types are constantly coming up with, but good classroom management. Only when you have that down can learning take place.
I am lucky I work for LBUSD which is laying off no teachers. Our district has a ratio of about 450 administrators per student, unlike LAUSD's ratio of about 180 per student. LAUSD is to heavy with administrators, that is why a lot of young teachers are getting the ax.

[Henry Castellanos]

Research the subject deeper and you will find that LAUSD Board members are conveniently NOT proposing the best solution. This best solution is a WIN/WIN for all students, taxpayers, and the Los Angeles economy. What is this magic bullet? The LAUSD Board members make all cuts within their White Castle (LAUSD headquarters) and their 7 fiefdoms (local districts). All the cutting stops here; no classroom teachers are fired. This simple decision is the BEST solution.
Firstly, it achieves the highest cost savings for taxpayers by firing the fat that Board members have gorged on these last 8 years while building their personal fiefdoms (empires). Take a look at how many departments, "offices of", programs, and projects currently exist within LAUSD and you will be amazed by the sheer number (fat). An example of this fat is that LAUSD has a Real Estate department that has Real estate agents and supervisors. Why isn't this department cut first?
Secondly, a large percentage of those people being cut WERE once classroom teachers that applied for a LAUSD position within the bureaucracy many years ago. Now tell us taxpayers why should these people which made a decision to promote themselves have their previous teaching job secured for an indefinite length of time. Some of these people have been out of the classroom for ten years or longer yet are guaranteed their old teaching job!!! Was this the case for the 2 million Americans that have been laid off this January and February 2009?
Thirdly, true cost savings can only be achieved by the LAUSD Board if the current classroom teachers stay. Why? Younger teachers cost less to employ. Remember I few sentences ago how many teachers left teaching to work for the LAUSD bureaucracy? Most did this because teaching wasn't their calling others did it because they had reached the 10 year salary ceiling and were unable to increase their annual pay. This person applied for a LAUSD higher paying position and left teaching. Now they come full circle, back to teaching at the highest level of the teacher pay scale; untrained in the numerous Mathematics, Science, English writing, History, and Health academic programs recently mandated; and I suspect less motivated as younger teachers. These people will "bump" out younger teachers simply because the LAUSD Board is to chicken to change it's policy. On the other hand, Mr. Duffy, UTLA President, says they will never accept it. I think the UNION (classroom teachers) would be more than willing to recall him if he pressed the issue. It is quite clear to classroom teachers that Mr. Duffy (UTLA) has a grave problem here. Their problem is one of "conflict of interest". The Union has no just reason for supporting the "bumping" policy in the eyes of teachers since the Union members (classroom teachers) are fully aware that Mr. Duffy is NOT protecting classroom teachers by following this course. The conflict arises when UTLA continues accepting union dues from LAUSD employees that are no longer employed in the capacity of a classroom teacher then negotiates to allow these very people to replace current classroom teachers. Where is the fiduciary relationship?
Fourthly, taxpayers will get more teachers for their dollars if all current classroom teachers are retained. Firing younger current teachers earning at least $45,637 per year is not a solution since they will be replaced by LAUSD headquarter persons (fat) that had previously been classroom teachers earning $72,592 per year (per LAUSD 2007-2008 Preparation Salary (T) Table).
And lastly, students will benefit by having a highly motivated teacher that loves to teach; being challenged by a well trained teacher in the most recent Science, Mathematic, and writing programs; and continue receiving academic instruction by the very teachers that have raised test scores throughout the Los Angeles Unified School District.

Signed,
Former LAUSD student/current LAUSD teacher

[Glenys Norwood]

Let's save our classroom sizes, let's save our young, enthusiastic and hard working new teachers. We'll lose a generation of fresh minds. Offer the older teachers a retirement package - they deserve it after many years of dedicated service to our community. Lets move forward into the next generation of teaching. How about trimming some of the fat cats too? There's plenty of them!

[concerned taxpayer]

The entire private sector is having to make concessions and so should our government employees. They have benefits that are far above the private sector standard. There is no way a government 'servant' should be making more than their 'employers' which are taxpayers!!

It is an outrage that teachers unions are only looking out for themselves and not the taxpayers that pay for it all.

One third of the state budget is dedicated K thru 12 Education agency as $40736446 or 30.2% of the 2009 revenues!! I don't see how that is not enough!!! I personally pay over 15k in taxes every year for a single person with no kids.

If we keep raising taxes on the already shrinking pool of taxpaying citizens this state will become a third world socialist state in record time!

Think about what we are doing ....... everyone should sholder the cuts as their patriotic duty!!!!

[c graves]

I am one of those new teachers. I know my Masters in Education and Credential doesn't seem like much (sarcasm) in comparison to teaching for 5 years. I greatly value the experience I will have from teaching through the years, but it is not right to watch other teachers who sit on their laurels, try nothing new, change nothing and who refuse to participate in types of teaching that has been researched to improve student achievement (humanitas, interdisciplinary programs, project based education). The union with the district to rid our schools of teachers who don't like children, do not continue their own education, do as little as possible to provide a positive learning environment and work with the "new" teachers to improve the education system as a whole. My limited understanding is that year after year new teachers receive lay off notices and then have to wait until July 1 to know for sure. In the mean time they are expected to think of their students first and their own well being last.

Why is it we have plenty of money for an unjust war, tax loopholes for rich people and bond issues for new prisons and we can't find the solution to our education system. I am a teacher in LAUSD and I don't understand how California thinks two year tenure makes sense. I get seniority, but it shouldn't be a strict adherence to a paper trail that determines which teachers' jobs are on the line each year.

[TDM]

Get rid of the LAUSD bureaucrats! We need MORE teachers, not less. Fewer college grads are pursuing teaching due to low pay, growing class sizes, and policies like this. When are we going to support our teachers!!!?

[Kerry]

There must be balance between merit and tenure in the public schools. As an employee of LAUSD for over a decade and a tax payer, I strongly believe that jobs are being protected without merit in the many schools I interact with as a teacher, parent and learner. Teachers and administrators need to be able to show evidence that they are doing the job they accepted in order to create a system worthy of the effort and resources being put into it. I am a defender of public education and a union member but I have seen some situations in the last decade that have been allowed to continue that make me weary. Teachers , new and experienced, and any school staff need to be held accountable and to perform the duties in their job descriptions, and be prepared to do more than you signed up for if you want to truly be effective in changing young people's lives. It is not just a paycheck, it's somebody's child.

[teacher in LAUSD]

As a teacher of LAUSD, I have worked in schools where the loudest and meanest voices get their way. There are teachers who don't deserve to be in the classroom because they are happy doing minimal work. There are new and veteran teachers who are minimalist whereas there are new and veteran teachers who are lifelong learners.

The contract states seniority rights, and if someone else has a better plan rather than complaining about who should be let go, then let's just go with the contract (and combine the little local districts of LAUSD into one big one, gaining much revenue that could potentially save 10 employees per district administrator).

[LL]

teacher in LAUSD is correct. I made the same observation while substitute teaching when I was earning my Masters. Frankly, as per previous "young Teacher" comment, her MA and credentials mean little, neither makes her a good teacher, or even an educated educator. Many people pass universities and exams learning nothing,: I moved to be university faculty.
There is also two other factors: everybody gets tired. With experience, the willingness to jabber around about your wonderful potential, job and students gives way to simple, often effective teaching.You no longer need to talk about it.
Second: older teacher will have harder time to find new jobs. That is not good for society, hence , it is not good policy.
Consider cutting down principal's and vice-principals salaries.
Oh, teaching is a well paid job. A teacher gets to teach 4 hours a day, 9 months a year with full benefits and starts $10,000 than a university professor. Two years late, tenure is there. Not bad.

[craig andrews]

As an English teacher, I must say that the lack of effective, correct writing in written comments by educators disturbs me.

[Tanya]

The comment regarding government employees receiving benefits far above the private sector, is laughable! First of all, the fact that you have no children that could potentially be effected by this sheds some light on the pure ignorance you must have on the severity of this decision. My husband is a teacher in the LAUSD school system, and there is no chance we could live on what he makes, or his health benefits! The fact is, this "solution" is not one that is effectively going to improve our school systems, or even manage to keep them at the par they are currently preforming at. Bigger classroom sizes equates to more stressed, less effective teaching, which in turn will negatively effect our children.
My husband received his "pink" slip over the weekend, and we were both completely appalled that the district, unable to afford to keep teachers, found enough money in their budget to send out over 9,000 of these notices via certified mail, which cost an average of $5.32 PER notice. That is approximately, $47,880. spent on letting teachers go, which could have been utilized MUCH more effectively. We should not be looking at letting teachers go, we should be looking at better, smarter spending, and trimming some of the fat off the top!

[CA veteran teacher]

I am a 26 year veteran teacher who has been teaching for the same school district for over 25 years. I believe that seniority is crucial in the teacher lay off process. Although senior teachers often cost twice as much in salary as junior teachers, how many people do you believe will pursue a career in teaching if, after 5 or 10 years that career is obsolete. Not many I suspect. I believe that this issue is not about whether to retain junior teachers or senior teachers it is about the waste of money in administration. Our government officials need to take a look at the percent of the budget spent on teachers vs. administration, consultants, board members' health insurance, etc. I suspect that if you ask teachers how to spend this money and get the desired results, they would all tell you the same thing, we do not need a top heavy admin., consultants, and other "hands off" personnel, we need teachers, support personnel, books, paper, pencils, and clean, safe, work environment that allows us to do our jobs. Maybe it is time the California legislator asks the teachers what they need in order to do their jobs. Then listen to those same teachers and impliment their suggestions instead of relying on the administration and outside consultants to determine what is best for the children that we have been doing our best (often with our hands tied behind our backs) to educate. It is time to "think outside the box" and keep teachers and support personnel and reduce administrative positions that often times hurt rather help the teachers and support personnel who are educating the children of California.