3 ms·

Just wanted to point this out for those of you who haven't seen this in the news. To combat a $40 million budget deficit, all of the teachers were fired (not la

Just wanted to point this out for those of you who haven't seen this in the news. To combat a $40 million budget deficit, all of the teachers were fired (not laid off). Just curious what other peoples thoughts are. More specifically, what long-lasting implications do you think this kind of policy is going to have on the USA's ability to keep up with the rest of the world? I think I'm speaking more to the attitude that surrounds education and not necessarily this specific instance.

ubercore 16y ago
They were given notices of _intent_ to fire. Most of those orders will be rescinded before the school year is over. The law requires that teachers be notified by March 1st of any possible change in employment by the end of the year. The city couldn't predict which schools will be closed or affected, to prevent opening the city to lawsuits, they sent notices to all teachers as a precaution. Also, the city's deficit over the next two years is closer to $180 million, due to falling revenue.
- ffumarola 16y ago
  They were able to afford tax cuts for people who make over $10 million/year (I'm recalling this from memory from this past summer...). And IMO there are plenty of programs that should be cut before education.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    There isn't much else that can be cut. At the local level, education spending dwarfs everything else. Nationwide, at the local level, more money is spent on education than on police, prisons, roads, welfare and healthcare combined. http://usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2009_US_total http://usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2009_US_total
yummyfajitas 16y ago
It's important to note the reason they were fired. As teacher Richard Larkin said, "You [the mayor] want to pick and choose teachers." If they were laid off, the district would be obligated to rehire them in order of seniority. According to the article, "Superintendent Brady has said that the majority of teachers will be rehired". So this is basically about cherrypicking the best teachers, and getting rid of low quality teachers with seniority. Overall, this will probably be very helpful in allowing the US to maintain our lead over (most of) the world.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  So this is basically about cherrypicking the best teachers, and getting rid of low quality teachers with seniority. Probably not. Ask them how they'll determine who the best teachers are? They have no metric today, at all. They'll likely simply use inverse seniority. Hire back the cheapest. This is akin to a company firing people the day before their options vest, just because it saves a lot of money. Maybe good business practice in the short-term, bad in the long-term, as even good teachers will realize that they'll likely be fired if they climb up the salary scale.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    If quality is unmeasurable, you should optimize for cost. This will either save the taxpayers money, or it will reduce the size of layoffs (holding cost constant).
    - jordanb 16y ago
      And this is why you should always hire the cheapest programmers then?
    - kenjackson 16y ago
      It's not that its unmeasurable, but they won't take the time to measure it. The cheapest way is to get rid of teachers altogether. Just let the students go to class and randomly assign grades. The fact that they have no real metrics will mean that perceived quality won't change -- but I think we'd both agree that something would have changed.
asolove 16y ago
If I understand the article correctly, this was a difficult but perhaps correct decision. But I don't know the details, so here is what I understood: 1. The school board had to close a budget deficit by getting rid of staff, but they did not have time to get exact numbers. 2. Under the terms of the union contract, they had a deadline to inform teachers if their jobs were in trouble. So they have sent everyone official notices in preparation for only having to eliminate some of them. 3. If they sent layoff notices to everyone, when they found out how many slots they had left, they would have to take teachers back by seniority rather than merit. 4. So they sent termination notices so they could hire back whoever they wanted. Now, as I said, I don't know the backstory. This may be an attempt by a controlling superintendent to get rid of a faction that disagrees with him. But from the facts in the story, it looks more like a union that negotiated a contract more in the interest of the senior teachers than in the interest of the school district or the students. And that because of the limitations in the contract, the board had little choice if they wanted to retain their best teachers.
damoncali 16y ago
If states had as much money as they thought they had, the teachers would be sitting fat and pretty. It says more about the idiotic financial management of local government than it does about teachers. (Watch out California - you guys are really fucked). So compared to the rest of the world, I think the US is fine - and by fine I mean in a financial cluster.
Umalu 16y ago
I suspect this was done to defeat a union contract that made it difficult to shrink the workforce. The logic behind collective bargaining is "if you don't like it, you have to fire all of us." That's usually a good tactic, as most employers arent willing to do that, but sometimes the bluff gets called. In terms of how this impacts education, it depends on whether this is a trend and how you feel about unionized teachers.
pluies 16y ago
> Just wanted to point this out for those of you who haven't seen this in the news. It's also interesting for those of us who live in said rest of the world. Thanks!
- ffumarola 16y ago
  No problem!
wyclif 16y ago
what long-lasting implications do you think this kind of policy is going to have on the USA's ability to keep up with the rest of the world? Excellent implications. The dregs of the teacher pool (and in American public schools, the worst teachers are pathetically, heinously bad) will be sifted out, and the best will be hired back. It will also allow a fresh start for the training of new teachers.
- ffumarola 16y ago
  And the best teachers will start being more cautious, not crossing any "lines" and trying new things, not angering the superintendent by teaching hot issues, etc. I do not believe one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. Fix the issue, don't put a bandaid on it.
  - wyclif 16y ago
    It doesn't follow that great teachers are more cautious.
    - ffumarola 16y ago
      Agreed, they aren't. But if mass firings happen just so the board can fire whomever they want, it is in a teachers best interest to stay on the administrations side, rather than just teach great. Some of the best teachers are the ones who challenge conventional thinking and bloated process. They piss the administration off (I was lucky enough to have multiple teachers like this in HS). They could have a target on their back right now.

ubercore 16y ago

They were given notices of _intent_ to fire. Most of those orders will be rescinded before the school year is over. The law requires that teachers be notified by March 1st of any possible change in employment by the end of the year. The city couldn't predict which schools will be closed or affected, to prevent opening the city to lawsuits, they sent notices to all teachers as a precaution. Also, the city's deficit over the next two years is closer to $180 million, due to falling revenue.

ffumarola 16y ago
They were able to afford tax cuts for people who make over $10 million/year (I'm recalling this from memory from this past summer...). And IMO there are plenty of programs that should be cut before education.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  There isn't much else that can be cut. At the local level, education spending dwarfs everything else. Nationwide, at the local level, more money is spent on education than on police, prisons, roads, welfare and healthcare combined. http://usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2009_US_total http://usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2009_US_total

yummyfajitas 16y ago

It's important to note the reason they were fired. As teacher Richard Larkin said, "You [the mayor] want to pick and choose teachers." If they were laid off, the district would be obligated to rehire them in order of seniority. According to the article, "Superintendent Brady has said that the majority of teachers will be rehired". So this is basically about cherrypicking the best teachers, and getting rid of low quality teachers with seniority. Overall, this will probably be very helpful in allowing the US to maintain our lead over (most of) the world.

kenjackson 16y ago
So this is basically about cherrypicking the best teachers, and getting rid of low quality teachers with seniority. Probably not. Ask them how they'll determine who the best teachers are? They have no metric today, at all. They'll likely simply use inverse seniority. Hire back the cheapest. This is akin to a company firing people the day before their options vest, just because it saves a lot of money. Maybe good business practice in the short-term, bad in the long-term, as even good teachers will realize that they'll likely be fired if they climb up the salary scale.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  If quality is unmeasurable, you should optimize for cost. This will either save the taxpayers money, or it will reduce the size of layoffs (holding cost constant).
  - jordanb 16y ago
    And this is why you should always hire the cheapest programmers then?
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    It's not that its unmeasurable, but they won't take the time to measure it. The cheapest way is to get rid of teachers altogether. Just let the students go to class and randomly assign grades. The fact that they have no real metrics will mean that perceived quality won't change -- but I think we'd both agree that something would have changed.

asolove 16y ago

If I understand the article correctly, this was a difficult but perhaps correct decision. But I don't know the details, so here is what I understood: 1. The school board had to close a budget deficit by getting rid of staff, but they did not have time to get exact numbers. 2. Under the terms of the union contract, they had a deadline to inform teachers if their jobs were in trouble. So they have sent everyone official notices in preparation for only having to eliminate some of them. 3. If they sent layoff notices to everyone, when they found out how many slots they had left, they would have to take teachers back by seniority rather than merit. 4. So they sent termination notices so they could hire back whoever they wanted. Now, as I said, I don't know the backstory. This may be an attempt by a controlling superintendent to get rid of a faction that disagrees with him. But from the facts in the story, it looks more like a union that negotiated a contract more in the interest of the senior teachers than in the interest of the school district or the students. And that because of the limitations in the contract, the board had little choice if they wanted to retain their best teachers.

damoncali 16y ago

If states had as much money as they thought they had, the teachers would be sitting fat and pretty. It says more about the idiotic financial management of local government than it does about teachers. (Watch out California - you guys are really fucked). So compared to the rest of the world, I think the US is fine - and by fine I mean in a financial cluster.

Umalu 16y ago

I suspect this was done to defeat a union contract that made it difficult to shrink the workforce. The logic behind collective bargaining is "if you don't like it, you have to fire all of us." That's usually a good tactic, as most employers arent willing to do that, but sometimes the bluff gets called. In terms of how this impacts education, it depends on whether this is a trend and how you feel about unionized teachers.

pluies 16y ago

> Just wanted to point this out for those of you who haven't seen this in the news. It's also interesting for those of us who live in said rest of the world. Thanks!

ffumarola 16y ago
No problem!

wyclif 16y ago

what long-lasting implications do you think this kind of policy is going to have on the USA's ability to keep up with the rest of the world? Excellent implications. The dregs of the teacher pool (and in American public schools, the worst teachers are pathetically, heinously bad) will be sifted out, and the best will be hired back. It will also allow a fresh start for the training of new teachers.

ffumarola 16y ago
And the best teachers will start being more cautious, not crossing any "lines" and trying new things, not angering the superintendent by teaching hot issues, etc. I do not believe one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. Fix the issue, don't put a bandaid on it.
- wyclif 16y ago
  It doesn't follow that great teachers are more cautious.
  - ffumarola 16y ago
    Agreed, they aren't. But if mass firings happen just so the board can fire whomever they want, it is in a teachers best interest to stay on the administrations side, rather than just teach great. Some of the best teachers are the ones who challenge conventional thinking and bloated process. They piss the administration off (I was lucky enough to have multiple teachers like this in HS). They could have a target on their back right now.