Lay Off Layoffs

With layoffs looming for scores of teachers in the country’s public schools, more parents and government officials are opposing seniority agreements in contracts with teachers unions. The status quo, representing a “last in, first out” pecking order, handles layoffs by first eliminating the newest teachers from classrooms. Joel I. Klein, chancellor of New York City’s school system—which could potentially layoff as many as 8,500 people this year because of a loss in state aid—has criticized the use of seniority as the sole metric by which teachers are laid off. The argument put forth by Klein and others is that the merit-blind seniority clause does not ensure that the teachers who remain in school systems are necessarily the most effective.

Rather than contending the dichotomy between seniority and teacher effectiveness, however, Klein and others should advocate a different approach to education policy that is based on keeping as many teachers as possible in the classroom. Public school teachers are essential to improving American education, meeting the needs of all students, and providing a crucial long-term investment in the continuing competitiveness, creativity, and competence of the country as a whole.

As such, laying off teachers is a short-term remedy that will have detrimental implications for the future. Larger classes will decrease the amount of quality and care afforded to students at present, an option that our already-struggling public school system cannot afford to see come to fruition. A decrease in the quality of education now will amplify over the years to result in an unwelcome decrease in the number of citizens capable of contributing and engaging with an increasingly competitive global economy. Moreover, any lessening in the current pool of teaching jobs will further discourage bright, enthusiastic students from pursuing jobs in education. No amount of penny-pinching is worth these costs. Understanding that the loss of state aid and tightening budgets are serious matters that have been approached with care and deliberation, we still argue that laying off teachers should not be a recourse for states strapped for cash. In this sense, the debate between seniority and merit need not take place, for there should be no across-the-board layoffs of teachers.

With this in mind, it is also important to recognize that seniority clauses have served to protect teachers who have challenged administrators and pedagogical norms with radical and unorthodox teaching methods. Teachers should be protected from arbitrary or politically motivated job loss and, for those reasons, seniority rules are beneficial. That said, we believe that teachers unions are exercising unduly power by insisting that seniority weigh so heavily in assessing who is to be kept and who cast out. Other factors like quality of instruction and student and parent input should be considered in addition to experience as a means of assessment. Ultimately, Klein’s argument brings to light the issue of how best to educate students with a decreasing availability of resources to do so. Rather than debating whom to lay off and how, however, we should be shifting the focus of the debate to how to preserve these jobs through the allocation of more funds for the protection of public education.