- Posted by David on July 1, 2010
District says it will keep the best teachers, regardless of seniority
The Battle of Chicago has heated up, with the school board taking aim at one of the teachers unions' most treasured traditions - tenure and the seniority system.
Last week the school board announced that it would start laying off the worst-rated teachers first, regardless of seniority. Officials say the new policy could affect up to 200 teachers who have recently been rated "unsatisfactory" by building principals.
Chicago teachers are annually rated as superior, excellent, satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Those who rate the lowest are generally given an opportunity to improve, but that luxury may no longer be possible during tough economic times.
When it comes to layoffs, district officials say they have a responsibility to keep the best and the brightest in front of the chalkboard and move lesser teachers out the door.
The policy will be invoked if the district follows through with plans for massive layoffs and to increase maximum class sizes from 32 to 35 students, according to officials. The district may also invoke the policy during future periods of layoff due to shrinking enrollment, they said.
The move by the Chicago board is the latest in a series of high-profile attacks on tenure throughout the nation. Lawmakers in Arizona and Colorado paved the way earlier this year by passing tough tenure reform laws, while Florida barely missed out when the governor vetoed strong reform legislation that was passed by the legislature with bipartisan support.
Lawmakers in California and Louisiana have also been debating tenure reform.
Karen Lewis, president-elect of the Chicago Teachers Union, told the Chicago Sun-Times that the new policy is "belligerent" and "confrontational," and quite possibly illegal. She said union attorneys would be investigating the situation in short order.
Chicago School CEO Ron Huberman quoted the state school code, which lists "performance ratings or evaluations" as criteria to consider when layoffs occur.
State law also gives the Chicago school district the right to overturn an arbitrators' decision and fire a tenured teacher following the regular appeals process, according to sources.
But others argue that the current teachers collective bargaining agreement, which calls for traditional layoff rules, takes precedent.
Regardless of the legal outcome, it's clear where both parties' priorities lie: The school board wants the best possible teachers for students, while the veteran teachers are mostly concerned about themselves.
"We think it would be wrong to lay off teachers who are performing for students when we know there are teachers who are not," Huberman told the Sun-Times. "We're trying to do what’s right for kids."
We hope the Chicago school board sticks to its guns and makes sure student needs take precedent over the self-serving demands of organized labor.
Push necessarily comes to shove
It's difficult to understand how the Chicago Teachers Union could be surprised by the board's attack on tenure. The two sides have been at odds for months, because the union refuses to make the slightest concession to help the district overcome a huge budget deficit.
Earlier this year Huberman and Mayor Richard Daley asked the union for a series of contract concessions to avoid massive teacher layoffs. The union said no and called for higher taxes instead.
Then the school board voted to increase the maximum class size from 32 to 35 students, to make way for the layoff of a great number of teachers. The union responded by filing suit to block the new policy.
Now push has necessarily come to shove.
The Chicago school district is in a great deal of financial trouble, and the board has to do whatever is necessary to improve the financial picture and academic opportunities for students. It would be wise, and morally correct, for the union to be a cooperative partner in this effort. But its leaders have continued to play an obstructionist role, leaving the school board no choice but to get tough.
Perhaps tenure wouldn't have become a target if the union had displayed some interest in compromise months ago.
But it's probably all for the best. Tenure is a huge problem that’s waiting to be tackled, in Chicago and throughout the nation. While it’s a bit dated, a 2005 investigation by Illinois journalist Scott Reeder illustrated how the current system is not effective in moving bad teachers out of that state’s classrooms.
According to Reeder's investigation, "The Hidden Costs of Tenure," only 61 of the Illinois' 876 school districts attempted to fire a tenured teacher since the law was changed in the 80s. Of those 61 districts only 38 were successful in firing a tenured teacher.
At the time the article was written, state arbitrators only approved an average of seven teacher firings per year.
Why is termination so rare? Because the law mandates a lengthy appeals process which often costs schools hundreds of thousands of dollars. School officials are often loathe to spend that kind of money on an uncertain outcome, particularly when state arbitrators are notorious for siding with teachers.
Reeder's article pointed out that between 2000 and 2005, only one non-Chicago teacher was successfully fired in Illinois for poor performance. The case was in the appeals process for several years and the school district spent more than $400,000 to get rid of him.
It would be far better to get rid of the tenure system altogether, so school boards won't be afraid to remove bad teachers from our classrooms.
"There is one word for why school boards aren't doing something about problem teachers - unions," one reformer was quoted as saying in Reeder’s study. "For a school board to do anything about a problem teacher, it often will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars."
An educator quoted in Reeder's study put it simply and accurately when he said, "Tenure is bad public policy because it breeds mediocrity."