Should Teachers Have Seniority Rights?

[Dave Stratman <Newdem@AOL.COM>]

Hi, everyone--

I have printed below the lead editorial in the 32-page double issue of New 
Democracy (July-October) which was printed last night. It is particularly 
appropriate in view of the Boston Globe's editorial today on seniority 
rights. 

Other items in the issue include: 

LETTERS 5
MANEUVERING PARENTS TO OPPOSE TEACHERS  10
LOCAL 2036 CALLS FOR HELP & GETS IT 12
SHAYA'S STORY   13
AMERICA'S HOUSING POLICY: THE COMPANY TOWN  16
A LETTER ON ANTISEMITISM    18
WHY WE CAN CHANGE THE WORLD 20
THE DARK SIDE: CANADIAN RIOT COPS ATTACK    24
COPS AND GANGS  26
WHERE HAVE ALL THE FARMERS GONE?    27
FACING HISTORY: HOW WORKING CLASS 
            GERMANS FOUGHT THE NAZIS (Part II)  28

Subscriptions to New Democracy are only $7/year. If you would like to 
subscribe, just send me your postal address.

Dave Stratman
**********
SHOULD TEACHERS HAVE SENIORITY RIGHTS?

Teachers' seniority rights are under attack across the country. Under the 
banner of education reform, teacher seniority protections have been lost or 
seriously weakened in Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Seattle, and are 
targeted in Los Angeles and Kansas City. In Boston, where the Boston Teachers 
Union and the Boston School Committee are negotiating a new contract as we go 
to press, the mayor has called for weakening seniority rights and a 
business-backed organization called The Boston Plan for Excellence has called 
for their elimination. A coalition of "community groups" and "parent 
organizations" calling themselves the "Voices for Children Coalition" is 
trying to intervene in the negotiations "on the side of the children"—against 
seniority rights. 
  How should parents react to this issue? Should we defend seniority rights 
for teachers? Or do these teachers' rights stand in the way of the best 
education for our children?

HIRING THE "BEST" TEACHERS

Voices for Children argues that seniority preferences in hiring must be 
eliminated so that "All schools should be able to hire the best person for 
the job." Common sense? Not really.
    Who is "the best person for the job" for principals constantly pushed to 
cut costs? It's the youngest teacher, the teacher who is cheapest, least 
experienced, most compliant, most easily intimidated, least savvy, least 
experienced in unionism, least likely to speak out or fight back–or it's the 
principal's brother-in-law: some crony in need of a job, or the friend of 
some pol he owes a favor to. 
    This isn't just a problem of individual principals; it's how the system 
works. In important ways, corporate and government officials want the schools 
serving working class and poor children to fail, to justify their place in an 
unequal society. This is why they starve the schools for funds. This is why 
they keep classes large. This is why they make life in urban schools so 
difficult for teachers, while they deprive children in urban districts of 
books and supplies and sometimes even of desks. This is why they impose high 
stakes tests designed to push students out of school without a diploma. 
     What about the argument that principals need to be able to hire their 
own staff to make education reform work, especially that part of education 
reform that involves creating a special "team" unique to each school? 
     The real obstacle to better schools is not technical but political. The 
problem isn't that we don't know how to make urban schools better. Teachers 
already know many ways to help our children learn more effectively. The 
problem is that teachers and parents don't have the resources, the political 
support, the power to make better schools happen. The "every school is 
unique" approach is another management scam, designed to put schools in 
competition with each other, break down collegial relationships across school 
districts, and prevent us from building a movement for fundamental 
educational change. 
     Eliminating seniority will worsen the climate of fear and demoralization 
that years of budget cuts and attacks on teachers have already created in our 
schools. It will put creativity and courage ever more at risk. Teachers 
fought for seniority protection in the first place because without it they 
were defenseless against School Committees and principals who wanted to 
eliminate more expensive, experienced teachers or to intimidate teachers who 
resisted favoritism and corruption. 
     Eliminating seniority rights is also designed to destroy the 
institutional memory of unionism in the schools. Younger teachers have no 
real experience of union organizing and struggle; by getting rid of 
experienced teachers, school officials aim to keep it that way.
     Seniority rights are critical to protect our children. Which teachers 
are most likely to be let go in the current climate of corporate-backed 
education reform? Exactly those teachers our children need the most: 
experienced teachers capable of handling the challenge of teaching in 
under-funded, understaffed schools and who are most willing to speak out 
against such atrocities as high stakes testing and other abuses. Without 
seniority rights, schools will become the personal fiefdoms of principals 
beholden to corporate forces hostile to good education for all children. 
   
THE MEANING OF SENIORITY

Seniority is a time-honored means of eliminating favoritism in the workplace. 
It goes much deeper than union contracts. Seniority represents a fundamental 
human value, the solidarity between generations, where older workers share 
their experience with the next generation and younger workers protect older 
workers as they begin to slow down.
   Education of course is not the only area where seniority is under attack. 
Seniority and other worker protections have been under attack for the last 25 
years throughout American industry, to be replaced by favoritism and fear. 
The only difference is that, in industry, the attack on seniority is 
justified in the name of efficiency and competitiveness, while in schools 
it‘s justified in the name of the children. 

THE NEED FOR A UNITED MOVEMENT

Many parents have had experiences where they were unhappy with a particular 
teacher. But the great majority of teachers are talented people dedicated to 
the well-being of children. Often the same conditions that undermine our 
children's school performance are the things that discourage teachers as 
well. We must see that teachers in trouble get help, just as we must get help 
for students in trouble. 
    The schools are rigged to fail. School officials are only too happy to 
see parents and teachers at each others' throats, leaving us powerless to 
affect schools for the better. Teachers and parents share the goal of success 
for all children. We can only succeed if we stand united. 
    The forces arrayed against seniority in Boston are the same powers which 
have given our children an inferior education for so long: the mayor, the 
Boston School Committee, the leaders of big business. The Boston Globe is the 
biggest opponent of seniority for teachers and the biggest promoter of high 
stakes tests for students. These are the last people parents should support.
    Beneath its pro-child rhetoric, "Voices for Children" is setting parents 
and teachers against each other at exactly the time when parent-teacher unity 
is most needed to stop high stakes testing and other corporate-backed 
reforms. A real parent movement would unite parents and teachers to defend 
our children.  

Dave Stratman
Editor, New Democracy
www.newdemocracyworld.org
5 Burr Street
Boston, MA 02130
(617)524-4073

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.