Minnesota remains one of the few states in the nation that requires decisions about which public school teachers to hire, promote or lay off to be made solely based on seniority, and not teacher performance measures, such as student progress or principal evaluations. DFL Governor Dayton and the DFL-contolled Legislature want to keep it that way.
The DFL has faired well at the polls recently, but Minnesotans aren’t tracking with the DFL on this “last in, first out (LIFO)” issue. The education reform group MinnCan commissioned a poll which put the following statement in front of a random sample of Minnesotans: “If teacher layoffs are required, seniority should be considered, but the primary factor in deciding which teachers to layoff should be based on teacher performance.” An overwhelming 91% of Minnesotans support that notion (68% strongly support, 23% somewhat support), while just 9% oppose it (4% strongly oppose, 5% somewhat oppose).
The DFL majority in the Legislature not only rejects making teacher performance the “primary factor” in layoff decisions, as the previously mentioned survey statement phrased it, it rejects making teacher performance even one of the factors considered in such decisions.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration’s Education Secretary of Education Arne Duncan agrees with 91% of Minnesotans:
U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said seniority alone shouldn’t determine which teachers are let go during budget cuts. But he wouldn’t say whether seniority should be among several factors when it comes to layoffs.
“You have to make sure the teachers that are having the biggest impact on students’ lives have the opportunity to do that work,” he said.
Duncan was responding to a direct question from WNYC about whether, all things being equal, a teacher with 10 years’ experience should stay over a teacher with one year in the event of layoffs.
Think about this odd, odd political scenario for a minute. I can’t name another issue where the DFL leaders are simultaneously at odds with over 90% of their constituents and the popular Obama Administration. Politically speaking, that simply does not happen very often, if ever. In fact, if anyone can name another issue in recently memory that mirrors this scenario, I’d love to hear it. Weirdest. Politics. Ever.
Note: This post was also featured in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs and MinnPost’s Blog Cabin.
Well, i don’t think that it is so bizarre.
Bottom line is that, even though some 90% do not agree, this is not a big, burning issue–those 90% really do not care about the issue all that much. Why? most people in MN are pretty comfortable with current education standards and performance. They don’t see LIFO as presenting much of a problem.
I agree that basing these decisions solely on tenure is foolish, But this is a classic situation where this matters very, very much to a small number of highly motivated people (teachers and teachers unions), and matters next to nothing at all to everyone else. The only people who are willing to go to the mat on this are the ones defending the status quo, so do not expect any change on this issue until this becomes a crisis somehow.
I understand why it happens, but being at odds with both your popular national-leader and your peeps sure doesn’t happen often. It’s a freak storm.
Re: “Most people in MN are pretty comfortable with current education standards and performance.They don’t see LIFO as presenting much of a problem.”
I agree with your point that it’s not a burning, top-of-mind issue with the masses, but its not like they’re shrugging when it comes up. Eight out of 10 Minnesotans agreed with this statement “Laying off teachers based primarily on seniority hurts the quality of education for students.” Half strongly agreed.
That MinnCan poll is complete bullshit. Seniority is NOT the opposite of teacher performance; in fact, it is probably the best predictor of teacher performance. Conversely, the MinnCan/deformer position signed into law last year that 35 percent of a teacher’s evaluation must be tied to student test scores is pure nonsense that will result in the firing of good teachers. There is zero evidence that teachers control 35 percent of student test outcomes. Why should teachers be judged on something they don’t control? It’s literally crazy.
And how will teachers who don’t teach reading, math or science be judged? We don’t test any other subjects.
i agree with you that the hardest part is teacher evaluation. I have never seen a really good form of teacher evaluation.
what do you think of this proposal?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/23/the-key-to-evaluating-teachers-ask-kids-what-they-think/
I think principals should do their job – an important aspect of which is evaluating teachers.
Would you trust a third grader to evaluate you?
Well, i think that you can learn a lot by surveying students in a class, so any one student, no, but all of them? Maybe, depending on what they were asked.
Joe:
Here is a great article that raises a lot of interesting questions about the phenomena of teacher pay/LIFO, etc.
http://www.american.com/archive/2013/february/was-mancur-olson-wrong/article_print
I tend to be a huge fan of Olson’s–i think that his theories explain a lot of US politics (including the conundrum that you posit in this post). (Not that I endorse this situation–I just think that this is an accurate reflection of reality).
I am not completely convinced that social media and communication offer a counterbalance–but they might change the dynamic somewhat.
I taught for 38 years under the direction of many different administrators. All of these administrators had overwhelming responsibilities, most of which the public has never considered. They simply do not have time to properly evaluate all staff. I’m not sure how that could be done anyway.
I also worked in a system that frequently “helped” young teachers find a different profession during their first years. The public for the most part doesn’t know this was being done unless they personally knew someone being eliminated.
I also remember a handful of individuals that got through those first years and were eliminated later, even when they had so-called tenure. It is not tenure, in MN it is a right to be treated fairly. Individuals should be given an opportunity to make changes and become good teachers. That is when administrators are essential to identify problems early and work to fix them.