The “Keep Our Educators Working Act” and Teacher Seniority Rules

As Tennessee continues to struggle with its budget woes, Congress is prepping a bill, the Keep Our Educators Working Act (bill text), to provide money to states preparing to lay off teachers because of budgetary issues (h/t Eduwonk; National Journal Education Experts Blog).  Though this money isn’t likely to head to Nashville due to Dr. Register’s strategy of insulating teachers (not janitors or bus drivers) from budget cuts, the bill has raised an interesting issue about teacher layoff policies (other parts of Tennessee might still get some cash out of it as well).  Democrats for Education Reform, The New Teacher Project, The Education Equality Project, The Education Trust, and others have signed a letter to Congress urging that “loopholes” in the bill be closed before it passes:

We do, however, strongly oppose the bill’s removal of the four programmatic assurances that Congress and the President wisely included in the original stimulus bill. We also oppose any attempt to weaken fiscal accountability requirements. Without such provisions, there is no guarantee that states will spend the money on education rather than on other state budget shortfalls or that they will do so in a way that best serves the needs of students and taxpayers.

What’s the deal?  These folks are worried that without the type of “programmatic assurances” included in the original stimulus package, states will be able to fudge the distribution of the funds to fill state budget holes or replenish rainy-day funds, instead of actually funneling the money to districts to save teacher jobs.

For instance, in the stimulus bill, there was $48.6 billion set aside for states and territories to avoid cuts in education services and programs.  Along with the money came certain requirements (“programmatic assurances”).  From a Dept. of Education guidance document [.doc] for U.S. Territories:

As part of its application for Stabilization Funding, an Insular Area assures that, in consultation with the Department, it will take actions to:

• Enhance the qualifications and effectiveness of teachers in public elementary and secondary schools.

• Establish a longitudinal data system that includes the elements described in section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America COMPETES Act (20 U.S.C. 9871(e)(2)(D)).

• Enhance the quality of its academic standards and assessments.

• Modernize, renovate, and repair public educational facilities that are used primarily for classroom instruction.

• Strengthen the technology infrastructure of public elementary and secondary schools, public institutions of higher education, and governmental agencies.

• Establish or improve a credible financial management system consistent with the standards in 34 C.F.R. 80.20.

Essentially, the “programmatic assurances” are the strings that come along with the federal dollars.  The New Teacher Project, Democrats for Education Reform et al. want certain strings attached to this money that aren’t there right now.  It’s a good point.  Here’s an explanation/solution offered by The Education Trust:

Second, the legislation should close the balanced-budget loophole. The bill requires states to use funds only to retain existing school employees and hire new ones. It prohibits them from using funds to restore, supplement, or establish a reserve or rainy-day fund or to service state debt. However, these prohibitions do not apply if state law requires a balanced budget. Every state but one has a balanced-budget law. Unless this loophole is closed, 49 states could divert some or all of their share of funds to activities other than saving teacher jobs—even as massive teacher layoffs take place. (emphasis in original)

So that’s one part of the issue.  But what’s the broader problem the bill ignores?  Seniority rules. The New Teacher Project (among others) discusses it:

Unfortunately, teacher layoff policies in most cities and states make a bad situation worse by forcing schools to ignore teacher quality in layoff decisions. Instead, layoffs are based strictly on teachers’ seniority in the school system. The newest teachers are laid off first, regardless of their talent or results. Inevitably, extraordinary teachers are cut while less effective teachers are retained. In some states, even teacher-of-the-year award winners have received pink slips.

Seniority-based layoff policies are the norm around the country [pdf] (note: the linked document from the National Council on Teacher Quality is an excellent summary of the research and pros/cons of seniority-based layoffs — I highly recommend it).  When it comes time to fire teachers, more experienced (most often, older) teachers get preference over less experienced (most often, younger) ones. The Education Trust argues that such policies can actually mean that more teachers get fired as well:

Under this approach to layoffs, new teachers are always the first to go, regardless of how well they may do their jobs. But according to a 2009 report from the Center on Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington (CRPE), such policies actually result in far more people losing jobs than otherwise might be necessary.

Here’s why: Teachers’ salaries increase with longevity, so when school districts considering layoffs must fire teachers with the least experience—the ones who are paid the least—administrators have to eliminate more jobs to achieve the same dollar savings. In many districts, that can mean pushing out new teachers as well as energetic veterans who have worked for four, five, or even six years.

The CRPE report illustrates this point. Using the seniority-based layoff policies now in effect in most districts, roughly 875,000 public school jobs would be lost nationally if districts had to reduce their salary expenditures by 10 percent. Nearly a quarter-million of those lost jobs could be saved by using seniority-neutral policies that take employee effectiveness into account. Of those who could have remained employed, about 125,000 would be classroom teachers.

Like I mentioned above, the bill itself almost certainly won’t apply to Nashville directly, but the arguments behind it certainly do.  Here’s the 2009-2010 MNPS/MNEA teacher contract [pdf] (Art. II, Sect. H, pg. 6):

H. REDUCTION IN PROFESSIONAL STAFF

When staff reductions among certificated personnel are necessitated by a decrease in enrollment, budgetary restrictions, or phasing out of programs, reductions shall be made first by reverse order of seniority within the area of teacher certification, and then consideration shall be given to academic program needs by subject area or grade level.

All certificated personnel terminated for the reasons stated above shall be re-employed in order of system seniority within their area(s) of certification as vacancies occur and consistent with Title 49 of Tennessee Code Annotated. (1999)

We have the same seniority-based rules as everyone else.  Here’s the New Teacher Project’s take on the problem, and proposed solution for “fixing” the bill:

The “Keep Our Educators Working Act” may postpone some layoffs, but only for so long. When funding runs out, districts and states will again face the difficult decision of which teachers should be cut. Congress should ensure that, when that time comes, it isn’t illegal for schools to try to keep their best teachers.

It can do so by amending the bill to require states and districts to enact quality-based layoff policies in short order if they accept funding. Transparent, fair layoff procedures based on performance are possible—it is only a matter of taking action. This amendment would ensure that taxpayer dollars go towards protecting the country’s best teachers at all experience levels. Let’s not allow a generation of talented young teachers to become the next victim of the recession.

Given the increased human capital cost, as well as the complete lack of wiggle room (e.g., allowing high performing less experienced teachers with a demonstrated track record to stay on in place of a mediocre more experienced teacher), this is a issue that needs to be examined, and whose course can be turned, at least to some degree, by any federal money that comes down the pipe.