Washington’s students deserve the most effective teachers. However, when schools are forced to layoff teachers due to budget cuts, seniority trumps effectiveness. This means a good teacher can be laid off, while a teacher everyone knows is unsatisfactory is kept. This is not in the best interests of our students.
A proposal, Senate Bill 5399, would allow districts in the unfortunate circumstance of having to layoff teachers, let go of teachers rated unsatisfactory first. We believe this bill deserves a public discussion. However, we are frustrated that Senator Rosemary McAuliffe, chair of the Senate Early Learning & K-12 Committee, will not allow a public discussion in her committee.
Contact Senator McAuliffe and urge her to hold a public hearing on Senate Bill 5399. Or call her Olympia office at (360) 786-7600. Time is running out. SB 5399 needs to receive a public hearing before a crucial legislative deadline.
We know that more state budget cuts are coming, and unfortunately schools could be forced to layoff many teachers. SB 5399 would allow school districts to layoff unsatisfactory teachers first before those teachers who have a satisfactory rating. Of the 60,000 classroom teachers in our state, we understand this legislation would only affect less than 1 percent who are rated unsatisfactory.
As parents, we love our children’s teachers. And we are frustrated to see good teachers laid off while an unsatisfactory teacher is protected. This bill will help ensure a quality teacher is in the classroom.
As a respected science teacher for over 39 years I must take exception to your statment that “good teachers can be laid off, while a teacher everyone knows is unsatisfactory is kept.” Under present state law an unsatisfactory teacher can be layed off in 90 days. Also,senior teachers are often the most effective teachers. Under the bill (SB 5399) an administrator can get rid of a teacher that may a problem for the administrator but also an excellent teacher. Many times really excellent senior teachers are not well liked by administrators because they push for better education for children and cause managment problems. If you really want to help the system change the law so that teachers in a building decide who teaches and administors there. Without many changes seniority is the best and fairest way to keepgood teachers!
Mr. Reid,
I find it difficult to believe that a district can rid itself of an ineffective teacher in only 90 days. A teacher who has committed a crime–yes, of course. A brand-new teacher? Perhaps, even probably so. But a teacher with a continuing contract who has come to see the job as just that–a job, nothing more–I’m skeptical.
That said, there is merit to your suggestion that teachers have greater input into building staffing and management. I don’t know whether you are familiar with the principle of subsidiarity, but it is exactly what you have described. It proposes that in any society decisions be made at the lowest level possible, i.e., as close to the action as possible. It would, of course, also mandate the abolition of the Dept. of Education–but that is another discussion.
I cannot agree with you with respect to the ‘fairness’ of a strict seniority system. Such a system allows for the growth of too much deadwood.
I for one will be contacting Senator McAuliffe in support of her decision not to give this abominable bill a hearing. I want LEV to know that it has lost whatever credibility it ever had, by its support of Teach For America and in its promotion of this awful piece of legislation.
In my 13 years as a public school parent, from constant conversations with teachers, principals, and other parents on the subject of teacher quality, I feel certain that in most cases, most parties agree that teacher evaluation is one of the most difficult things to measure ACCURATELY, not to mention fairly, in public education.
Not only is it the most difficult task to measure, it is the most difficult task to ADMINISTER, and few principals, in few districts, can do it thoroughly, accurately, and to everyone’s satisfaction that the process has been fair, transparent, and effective.
Now comes this stupid bill, which would make the process even more time-consuming, harder to administer, and more litigious, costing uncounted time and personnel-hours to already strapped districts at a time when they can afford it the least — with NO money from the state to cover the cost of administration.
If this bill were to become law, does anyone truly believe that corners would not be cut? Does anyone believe that the process would be LESS litigious and LESS expensive to administer as a result?
I want that money spent in the classroom. LEV is absolutely on the wrong side where this bill is concerned.
As a taxpayer who would be stuck paying for any litigation awards, I too am deathly afraid of a lawsuit – from the approximately 1 – 1.6 MILLION WA residents who were shoved out (dropped out) from the FEW teachers who belittled them, didn’t give them differentiated instructions, waited until 3rd grade to suggest there might be a learning problem, etc. etc. This would leave even fewer resources creating gargantuan classroom sizes because most of our money go to pay lawsuit awards assuming we could find anyone willing to work for the bankrupt school systems.
At a 30% dropout rate, about 75 kids are dropping out of WA high schools EVERY calendar day (26,000 / year).
How many more decades must we wait before we really get serious about really educating all our kids? When are we all going to work together to ensure all our kids learn so they can graduate on time and on grade level?
If there are teachers that everyone knows are unsatisfactory, they should be dismissed without waiting for a lay-off. Why hasn’t the principal done his or her job and dismissed that teacher? Every ineffective teacher retained is evidence of an ineffective principal. It appears that the real problem is ineffective principals, not ineffective teachers. If we didn’t have ineffective principals then we wouldn’t have any ineffective teachers to complain about, would we? Where is the law that will facilitate the dismissal of ineffective principals?
If there are teachers who are unsatisfactory, they should be dismissed – with or without a layoff. Then there wouldn’t be any ineffective teachers to dismiss before senior teachers when layoffs do happen.
Right on again Charlie,
Under state law if there is a teacher that is not doing the job it only takes 90 days for an administrator to go through the process of removing that teacher. I have seen cases where this was done and other times when the administrator did not do thier job. To Mr. Harper . You have to live it to understand it and if the laws are followed as
they are written the system works just fine and an unsatisfactory teacher can be fired in 90 days. A teacher who does criminal behavior can be fired immediately. I am very aware of a number of principles that show that the best way to deal with a problem is to get as close to the problem as possible.This new bill will do nothing to solve educations problems.
Mike Reid