Keeping teachers simply by seniority. Who are paid double, many who are past passion for the job, who are out of date in their ideas and training, who did not retire this year to make room for new teachers because you did not offer them enough incentive (more $) is wrong.
You have less money. Fine. You have less kids. Fine. You have to make cuts. Fine. But do not even pretend that the kids are not going to suffer from this or that the decisions are in their best interests. Cutting the teachers who are fresh and have the most up to date skills for educating kids does not help the kids. It does not even make financial sense. The only people it is protecting are the more senior teachers. Teachers who are not necessarily more skilled, or knowledgeable. Many of whom have been sitting safe and secure so long that they did not update their skill sets, and long ago made it a job and not a passion, who are milking the system as long as they can. This is not to the benefit of the kids, or the tax payers.
If we are going to treat teaching as any other business then judge cuts according to ability and worth as opposed to what essentially equates to age and luck of having entering the system earlier. I can guarantee you that if you talk to every principal each one could tell you exactly who is not worth having and who is. Just because someone happened to enter the system earlier does not mean they should be protected. Keep the up and coming stars and cut the lame ducks. Does this make too much sense? Shame. —Retidder