Scalpels, Not Hatchets

In one of his early debates with Senator John McCain, President Obama famously declared that the government needed to use a “scalpel” instead of a “hatchet” to reduce spending. The state of California, however, seems to have no problem with using a hatchet to address its current budget crisis. As of mid-March, the government will have issued over 25,000 pink slips to teachers statewide, to the outrage of teachers, parents, and students alike.

Certainly, tough times call for tough measures, and, with layoffs a common occurrence in the private sector, it is unreasonable for the public sector to pass completely unspared. The problem is the manner in which teachers are laid off—as dictated by the California Education Code, teachers are fired based on seniority, so that the last hired are the first to go. This system of indiscriminately cutting from the bottom up means that schools are likely to lose many of their bright, young, and energetic teachers, to the detriment of their students.

In no other profession would it be considered acceptable to fire employees solely for being new at the job or exploring time off, regardless of their job performance. Indeed, research consistently reaffirms the strong connection between teacher quality and student achievement; schools cannot afford to lose effective teachers because of seniority rules. Moreover, because teacher pay is also related to seniority—and recent hires have the lowest salaries—cutting only the newest hires means that school districts must lay off more teachers in order to balance their budgets, further straining school resources and driving up class sizes.

Unfortunately, seniority-based layoff policies in the teaching profession—set by law or contract in most states and heavily backed by teacher’s associations—are common but flawed practices. Those fired are most often young teachers who have missed out on tenure opportunities. Experienced teachers who take time off to pursue other projects are also penalized by the system because they lose seniority when they leave a school district. At a time when the president is calling on more Americans to enter the teaching profession, this apparent dispensability is extremely demoralizing; it makes little sense to discourage new teachers by putting them in such a precarious position.

How to explain this bizarre reasoning, then? The explanation is largely political. Teachers’ unions stick to seniority-based layoff policies because they prioritize job protection, even above student welfare. Teachers should be given the privilege of staying power, however, due to merit, not merely the length of time worked. School districts should certainly make every effort to retain good teachers that have worked for many years, but, if cuts need to be made, they should focus on letting go ineffective teachers instead of simply targeting new ones. If layoffs must be made, they should be done so based on a combination of seniority, years of teaching experience, and performance evaluation. Researchers have suggested a combination of “student-assessment data and principal evaluations” to assess effectiveness in the classroom and make cuts accordingly.

Understandably, many teachers and teachers unions are wary of performance-based evaluations because of disagreement over what constitutes a fair way of measuring teacher effectiveness. But making decisions about matters like salaries and layoffs based on a nuanced teacher evaluation system is far fairer than merely looking at the number of years a teacher has logged at one school district.

In a speech made to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on March 10, Obama declared that “America’s future depends on its teachers.” Reforming teacher layoff procedures will help ensure that, even in a down economy in which hard choices must be made, good teachers stay in the classroom, where they can continue with the invaluable task of educating our youngest citizens.


Adrienne Y. Lee '12, a Crimson editorial writer, lives in Matthews Hall.