How Does This Make Sense?

There are more than 70 people who are retiring at the end of this year from my district, four in social science. Instead of rescind lay off notices to fill those positions, they have decide to open the positions to inter-district transfers. The job notice very clearly states that those like me who have received preliminary lay off notices are not eligible to apply. This makes no sense at all.

I asked my principal for clarification and he told me that these positions are opened to those who have enough seniority to be guaranteed a spot next year. I asked him what would happened if people fill those positions (3 social science at my school) and then they decide to rescind our notices. He told me that I am only guaranteed a position in the district with a rescind notice and not my position. So in theory, I could be forced to move to a new site. This makes zero sense!

I understand that there are legal issues with seniority, bumping and layoffs....but why not just take the next 4 qualified people (based on seniority) who have lost their jobs and fill them in to the retirees spots? Yes, some people would have to move schools because there are no retirees at their sites, but most could retain their positions. So much time and energy is wasted the way they do the process. Any teacher who is involuntarily transferred is moved by the district - this costs money. Any teacher who volunteers, does so at their own moving expense. So limiting the involuntary transfers by NOT opening the positions and instead rescinding lay off notices not only makes logical sense, it makes monetary sense as well!

Speaking of Seniority

Yesterday I attended the Reduction in Force (RIF) hearing in my district. This is where an Administrative Law Judge hears from both the district personnel and a lawyer who representes all of the employees who have received RIF notices. Sometimes people bring about challenges as to why someone who is less senior did not receive a notice.

I had a chance to look at the seniority list for quite a long time yesterday. My number is 1246. There are 1393 total people on the list. In theory, this means there are about 150 people with less seniority than me. The problem is that many of them were not RIF noticed because they teach certain  subjects - science, art, special education, French - and that means they have guaranteed jobs for next year, even though they may be first year teachers.

This has always been my issue with the RIF process. It is not just about when you started in the district, but what you teach. In a perfect world it would be "last hired, first fired." But this is anything but a perfect process! Districts have the right to choose which types of positions they are eliminating. That is why there are elementary teachers who have been in the district 9 years who may not have a job next year, but a first year art teacher will. I think this is completely unfair!

While I do support the idea of seniority because it means there are 6 other social science teachers who will be let go before me, I believe it the process is inherently flawed in how it is carried out. I truly believe the first year art teacher needs to be let go before the district considers laying off any 2nd year teacher. I also believe that we need to do more to protect core subject teachers (math, science, English and social studies). Those are the areas that are tested and measured by the state and the public. Art and music are necessities, but in times of economic crisis, those need to be reduced before the core subjects.

I understand there are certain positions that are more difficult to fill because there are less people who hold those credentials. But if a district needs to eliminate positions, should it not start with last hired (regardless of what position they hold)? If the bottom 10 happen to all be math teachers, then some discretion perhaps needs to be given. But eliminate fairly and equally across all subject areas.

I Hate Pink in March!

Four pink slips in five years! I had the extreme misfortune of moving to my current district five years ago when California's budget crises began. This year my district is anticipating a $23 million shortfall and has decided to eliminate 120 positions, 86 of them from K-5 (elementary)!

Because the state of California has a law that says teachers who may not have a job for the next year must be notified by March 15th, the district decided to issue pink slips to 180+ teachers. They have until May 15th to rescind the notices or make the lay off official. I personally think it is time the state of California rethink this law as it causes undue emotional turmoil on thousands of teachers and counselors every year!

The process is based on seniority and specific types of positions to be eliminated. Even though there are 8 other high school teachers in my subject with less seniority, the district over issues pink slips in case a teacher with more seniority than me holds a credential to teach my subject. In that case, they would "bump" me out of my position. Seniority is based on the hire date and a point system that includes credentials held, number of years teaching and special certifications.

It really is a stressful, crazy process and I wish they would figure out how to make it smoother and more transparent. Those who have never been in my position cannot understand the emotional turmoil of having to wait two months in limbo wondering if you make the cut to keep your job. And so the roller coaster begins for yet another year.