California Teacher Layoff System Needs to Change

Chances are, if you have a child in public school, at least one of the teachers at their school has received a layoff notice. In fact, in California the teacher workforce has shrunk by 11% since 2008. Economic factors, decreasing enrollment and district cutbacks causes this number to increase and decrease in districts; in real numbers, this means that over 32,000 teachers have lost their jobs in the last five years. The CTA (California Teacher's Association) reports that 20,000 teachers received layoff notices for the 2011-12 school year.

The layoff process, controlled by state law, allows school districts to lay off teachers due to several reasons, dictates the timeline for notification (by March 15) and how teachers might be rehired if situations change. By May 15, districts must make official layoff decisions for the upcoming school year.

This is where I find huge problems with this process. First, the layoff process actually costs districts money. Each permanent employee, having the right to a hearing, eventually costs the district $700 to provide the layoff and appeal process.

Second, the state timeline doesn't align with the California state budget decisions. Districts, forced to meet the March due date, often 'over notify' teachers to prepare for a worst-case scenario. The result is that California's newest teachers repeatedly receive layoffs, causing stress, lack of future planning, and eventually the loss of energetic and inspired educators. Schools are unable to proactively plan what courses and programs can be offered and what staff will be credentialed to teach.

In my 21 years teaching in California I have received two notifications-one in 2008, and one this year. Our district notified teachers back to those hired in 2001, causing a domino effect of educators 'bumping' their colleagues out of positions simply due to their credential, not based on any actual experience they may have in that subject.

The California's Legislative Analyst's Office is looking to improve this process by moving the notification date to June 1 and the decision date August 1. In my opinion, this would allow districts to establish accurate budget predictions and thus notify less teachers. In the big picture, the less impact the process has on those people who stand and face our children each day the better. Working and planning under the threat of losing my job is not the way to end the school year. Teachers and kids deserve better.

Read More

Should Teachers Have to Audition for Their Jobs?

With a growing number of headlines reporting teachers who are incompetent, unprofessional, and lacking simple morals, it's a wonder how some teachers were ever hired to begin with. It seems the standard teacher hiring process needs updated, requiring more skill and performance-based evaluations. According to the Washington Post, D.C. public schools have already done that, implementing rigorous interviews along with teacher auditions. But should teachers have to audition for their jobs?

 Ask a veteran teacher, and you'll receive looks of disbelief. Until recently, the standard hiring process for teachers went: 1. School posts opening; 2. Teacher mails resume; 3. School contacts teacher for interview; 4. Teacher and principal conduct face-to-face interview; 5. Hiring decision is made.

Add a few extra interviews - with board members or other personnel - and this is how most teachers have gained employment in schools nationwide. Changing this ritual would throw a curve ball to many rookie and veteran teachers searching for a new position.

In Washington, D.C., candidates teach a practice lesson - recorded by 360-degree video cameras - in front of a classroom full of students. If the teacher's efforts are deemed acceptable, their application is then placed in the district's database of eligible teacher applicants.

For schools burned by under-performing teachers, asking teachers to audition for their jobs may be just what the superintendent ordered. Being able to see a teacher "in action" may better determine which teachers are comfortable in the classroom, and which effectively lead and engage their students. Auditions may also sway administrators from simply hiring people they know, a common complaint in the education community.

As a teacher, I see the benefits of teacher auditions from both sides of the hiring desk. Schools gain better insight into candidates, while teachers can exhibit their skills and showcase their strong points.

However, having actually auditioned for a teaching job in the past, this practice can also be unethical. Years ago, I interviewed for a job teaching both elementary and high school students. That evening, I received a call asking me to teach a sample lesson the very next day. When asked for information, they would not share the grade or number of students, what setting we'd be in, or how much time I had to teach (but I was asked to "wow" them). I was told there would be allotted time to set up materials (crucial for teaching art). With no prior notice, I had to call for an emergency substitute (as I taught at another school) and plan a last-minute "wow"-inciting lesson.

Upon arrival, I was ushered into a room to "set up." To my shock, I entered a room full of students, with an administrator who looked at his watch and said "30 minutes, clock's ticking." I quickly assessed the number and age of students, including which part of my lesson I could teach. After thirty minutes, each student had completed a project, but cleanup was not finished. I received disapproving stares. I did not get the job.

I later learned that this district was infamous for conducting negative teacher auditions, with colleagues being forced to teach students intentionally told to misbehave and even throw things at the teacher. This is completely unethical, as the teachers were set up to fail.

So should teachers have to audition for their jobs? For the good of our schools and students - yes. However, for the good of our teachers - only if they're conducted fairly and ethically.

Read More