For several weeks, Gov. Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg have played “good cop, bad cop” on the issue of “Last in, first out” reform.
The mayor had warned that looming state education cuts might force him to lay off 10,000 teachers. Cuomo’s budget proved less dire than Bloomberg feared — forcing “just” 4,700 teacher layoffs — yet he still needs LIFO reform in order to manage the impact. So Bloomberg allies in the Legislature introduced a LIFO-reform bill — and Cuomo proposed his own, more teacher-friendly measure.
United Federation of Teachers leaders characterize LIFO reform as an attack on teachers — claiming that Bloomberg seeks to fire senior, higher-paid teachers to save money. Yet the fact is that incompetent tenured teachers are more expensive not just in salary — but also in the impact their incompetence has on their students.
This battle is purely about job protection, not compensation. Tenure protections for public-school teachers aren’t about job performance — nor about protecting unpopular opinions. This is really seniority protection — a major tenet of unionism. And it certainly has no place in the public-school setting.
Tenure is more appropriate in the judiciary and universities. Judges and professors deal in the realms of ideas and innovative thinking, perhaps controversial, which challenge convention, tradition and orthodoxy. Lifetime tenure protects them from political retaliation. Public-school teachers, though professional educators, aren’t automatically courting controversy — and so have no real need of such “free speech” protection. Collective bargaining and other union-negotiated work rules plus state labor laws guard against unfair treatment and harassment.
One newspaper reported recently that teachers across the nation wonder, “Why the scorn?” and feel devalued by education-reform efforts. Hmm: Making it easier to dismiss incompetent and ineffective educators ought to be seen as an effort to increase the value of excellent teachers. Merit pay is also an effort to reward excellence.
Sorry: Adherence to rigid union rules such as LIFO and tenure protection does little to advance the interests of school children.
Late last month, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten proposed a teacher-evaluation plan that takes tenure out of the equation when dismissing bad teachers. Her proposal deserves praise because she has conceded that tenure should not provide lifetime employment for teachers — especially ineffective ones.
There’s another issue here — namely, the state-city obligation under the ruling in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity case, which last decade ordered more resources for low-performing school districts.
Bloomberg argues that LIFO reform will enable him not only to dismiss ineffective teachers but also to reduce the impact of cuts on CFE schools. Cuomo — in recognition that his budget doesn’t comply with the CFE funding decree — should support LIFO reforms that mitigate the impact of his cuts by allowing low-performing districts to keep their effective junior and non-tenured teachers.
The Flanagan/Bing bill before the Legislature would account for almost 4,000 New York City teachers who should be first in line for layoffs, based on their subpar performances. It also shields the poorest schools from the heaviest layoffs.
The assurance of tenure has no place in the discussion of how best to improve our public schools. It deserves only a limited place in the discussion over potential layoffs. (On the other hand, LIFO reform doesn’t properly belong in the state budget, as Bloomberg wants.)
The issues of tenure, teacher evaluation and LIFO eventually will be resolved this year. But the primary focus must remain student achievement — especially narrowing the achievement gap for minority pupils. City students need to be inspired by highly effective teachers committed to excellence and fostering critical-thinking skills.
When it comes to education reform, we should all be “good cops.”
Michael Benjamin retired from the state Assembly last year after eight years representing a Bronx district.