Fear of Lawsuits Punishes Talented But Young Teachers

The Wall Street Journal says that many employers, having to lay off workers, find it a safer move, legally, to target young workers. Why? Older workers can sometimes file age-discrimination complaints and lawsuits.

While younger workers tend to earn the lowest salaries, making them the least-expensive workers to retain, companies are becoming wary of laying off older, better-paid workers.

[snip]

“Companies don’t like [layoffs by seniority], but [they're] also the easiest to defend,” says Gerald Hathaway, co-chairman of the business-restructuring practice group with employment law firm Littler Mendelson. “If you have a bona fide seniority system it’s a defense for any type of discrimination,” according to the law, he adds.

This is particularly true in the education field, where many colleges and schools are taking measures to protect tenured teachers and professors. David Schauer, superintendent of Kyrene Elementary School District No. 28 in Tempe, Ariz., sent layoff notices to 68 teachers in anticipation of budget cuts. The cuts target only first-year continuing teachers, most of whom are in their 20s, says Mr. Schauer. “My worst fear is that really good people will leave teaching,” he says.

Nicole Ryan, a 24-year-old sixth-grade math teacher for Fox Lane Middle School, in Bedford, N.Y., received such a layoff notice. The notice was sent out to teachers and staff based on their seniority. So, despite strong performance reviews, budget cuts mean she may not have a job to return to in the fall. “I knew it was coming because, based on seniority, I was lower on the totem pole,” she says. “It didn’t make it any easier.”

As the article makes clear, a seniority system exists in many kinds of workplaces. It’s especially unfortunate to see it in schools, considering the powerful effects of a teacher.

“With Jobs Scarce, Age Becomes an Issue,” Wall Street Journal, May 19, 2009.

Funding for Cyberschools

Cyberschools, or schools that primarily use online technology, are one exciting addition to the education landscape. But they’re somewhat controversial, since some of the money sent to brick-and-mortar schools end up with the cyberschools. (Of course. Cyberschools don’t have the usual expenses of traditional schools, but they do have expenses nonetheless.)

The Commonwealth Foundation addresses the fact that in Pennsylvania, cyberschools are under fire.

Cyber schools cost significantly less per pupil than district-run schools.  While school districts spend over $13,300 per pupil, cyber schools received $8,700, on average, for each student—a difference of nearly $5,000 per pupil. In addition, the state reimburses school districts for 30% of the cost of charter schools (including cyber schools).  In other words, school districts keep more than half of their per-pupil costs for each child they no longer educate.

Two on Universal Preschool

Having failed to see one quarter of all high school students graduate (and in some places, an even higher percentage), one of the latest “reforms” of the public school establishment is to enroll ever-younger children in school.

The results are mixed, at best.

Head Start isn’t terribly effective, and it’s the largest and well-funded program. From Investors’ Business Daily:

Study after study shows Head Start doesn’t work. Tykes enrolled in the program, at an average cost of $7,700, were able to name only about two more letters than disadvantaged kids who were not in Head Start, according to the Hoover Institution’s “Education Next” reform project. They also didn’t show any significant gains in early math, pre-reading, pre-writing, vocabulary or oral comprehension.

“The unavoidable conclusion,” says Douglas Besharov, an American Enterprise Institute scholar, “is that the measured impacts of Head Start, Early Head Start and Even Start have been tragically ‘disappointing’ — the word used by most objective observers.”

He added, “These three programs do not make a meaningful difference in the lives of disadvantaged children.”

Even Start was authorized in 1988 as a family literacy program covering low-income kids from birth through age 7. Head Start was established in 1965 for 4- and 5-year-olds. Early Head Start was formed in 1995 for children from birth to 3, plus pregnant women.

In the Recovery Act budget just passed, the Democrat Congress added an additional $2.3 billion to the $7 billion-a-year Head Start program.

As well-intentioned as it may be, Head Start plainly has an unacceptably small impact on learning to justify its cost. Yet Obama wants to expand not only Head Start funding, but also its reach by offering the program beyond the inner cities and poor rural areas. His goal — one shared and championed by the first lady — is “universal pre-K,” or mandatory preschool modeled after Head Start.

It’s hard to see why the president thinks it’s a good idea to entrust all pre-K programs — nationwide — to a public system that he admits is fraught with serious shortcomings, especially in inner-city areas most in need of reform.

The Heritage Foundation gives a more thorough review of four federal proposals to expand pre-K programs, and looks at the performance of universal programs in Oklahoma and Georgia.

The New Budget and Education

The Topeka Capital-Journal summarizes the new state budget. It’s $13 billion in total (though I don’t know if that’s general funds or all funds). And when it comes to spending reductions,  “Kansas public schools lost the most — $113 million. The Kansas Department of Administration took the largest percentage hit — 34 percent.”

Another article has this to say about a bill that was sent to the governor for approval:

The bill loosens limits on local option budgets. That’s extra spending districts finance with property tax levies to supplement state aid.

The law allows school districts to add 31 percent to their base state aid. But state aid is due to drop $116 per student during the fiscal year beginning July 1. That automatically would cut districts’ local option budget limits, costing them $44 million.

The bill allows districts to calculate local option budgets based on their base aid before cuts, allowing them to get more money.

The budget was balanced by across-the-board budget cuts in departments, of 5.25 percent. Is that how much school budgets were reduced? Somehow I doubt it.

Kansas K-12 public schools had already lost almost $33 million in base state aid and special education funds in previous rounds of cutting, and the latest budget-balancing plan takes away an additional $83 million [for a total of $116 million]. Base state aid, set at $4,400 per student last fall, will drop by $116 for the next school year.

For perspective, Kansas schools as a whole spent $12,188 per student during the 2007-08 year, according to the state’s Total Expenditure report. A cut of $116 per student? Not terribly significant–at least if schools were able to move funds around to areas where they are most needed.

The Lawrence Journal-World, for its part, had this to say about schools:

Under the budget-balancing plan, public school spending will be cut $83 million in addition to cuts of approximately $45 million in an earlier round.

That’s a total of $128 million, a bit higher than the $116 million cited by the Capital-Journal.

The LJW, in another article, points out that John Robb, an attorney for the school districts that filed suit against the state in the Montoy case, wasn’t happy with the reductions in state funding.  It offers yet another number:  “Since the start of the year, lawmakers have cut school funding by nearly $130 million as part of an effort to balance the budget.” But again, for perspective, state aid to schools in 2007-08 was $3.1 billion.

The Kansas City Star seems to have it right in an article by David Kepler. The headline is “Schools, coal plant come out on top as Kansas Legislature closes.” Here’s what it has to say about schools:

Winners
Schools: Yes, lawmakers cut more than $100 million in school spending. But it could have been a lot worse for public education, which eats up more state dollars than anything else.

The Star moves its articles off line pretty quickly; for now you can find the article here.

Choice For Me But Not You

From an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, titled Arne Duncan’s Choice:

Science magazine recently asked Mr. Duncan where his daughter attends school and “how important was the school district in your decision about where to live?” He responded: “She goes to Arlington [Virginia] public schools. That was why we chose where we live, it was the determining factor . . . I didn’t want to try to save the country’s children and our educational system and jeopardize my own children’s education.” It certainly is easier to champion public schools when you have your pick of the better ones (like the Duncans) or the means to send your children to a private school (like the Obamas).